Peter F

How is the West's hand tied? Is the West with-holding some weapon or other? How is the West holding back? What is the West not doing that it could be doing - but isn't in order to be 'fair'? Your question is extremely vague. If I answer 'Yes' that means that I think its fair that we fight with one hand tied behind our backs If I answer 'No' that means that I think its unfair that we fight with one hand tied behind our backs\ ...but I don't believe any of the Wests hands are tied behind our backs. Therefore answering your question is impossible.

And If Mr.Steyn was simply pointing out that those of the Islamic faith had hight birth rates that would be fine - however, he is suggesting that we non-islamic types must do something to protect ourselves. The implication being that we must take some sort of action. He certainly isn't talking about immigration - because I'm sure a man with Mr. Steyn's command of the language could very easily state something along the lines of 'the west must stop Muslims immigrating' - as Leafless does. No. Mr Steyn, I think, was alluding to other things - but typical mealy-mouthiness, was too cowardly to actually speak the words he meant. The West must become violent with Islam in general in order to save our civilization from Islamic conquest. Note, that according to Steyn it is Muslims - in general - who are a danger to our civilization. So we must take action against Muslims. Thats what I think he means - and thats why I think he is advocating Hatred and encouraging violence - but being coy enough to not actually speak wth words. He deserves everything he gets.

I don't think so. Harper's the loser in this one. Nato doesn't have to do anything. Most of the NATO country's are not interested in 'combat' in Afghanistan, exceptions being the Dutch and British - but even they are not willing to increase thier committments either. So who gives a hoot what a Canadian commission says? If the Americans turn a screw or two perhaps NATO as a whole will come up with some more troops - but so what? NATO is kicking Taliban ass around the countryside even if we are a thousand troops short - and even if we don't have helicopters and even if we didn't have tanks with 120mm guns instead of old fashioned 105mm guns, and even if the troops were wearing green camo and not brown camo. Canada is not going to pull the plug even if NATO doesn't pony up. Its all empty threats and NATO knows it, for there is nobody to replace us except for the Americans and they would be highly upset should Canada 'pull the plug' as you say. Canada isn't going anywhere for a couple of more years. Harper has no options and NATO knows it.

Yeah, their nuts in a vice allright... byline: Mike Blanchfield and Brian Hutchinson, Canwest News Service Published: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 National Post 30 January Meaning Canada's holding the bag so why should NATO worry? Peter O’Neil, Europe Correspondent, Canwest News Service Published: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 National Post 29 January ...and, no, NATO isn't dreadfully concerned about Canada's position. They know we aren't going anywhere...

Harper has no options. We're stuck holding the bag. But the Manley's Commission said what it said so Harper has to make some effort to comply with its recommendations. Who knows? Perhaps somebody will come up with the troops and equipement and all will be well - or perhaps not. But we aren't going to leave in 2009 because we can't just pack up and leave - hell, we won't even be able to draw down our committment levels. We're there for two or three more years wether we want to be or not. Once the Afghan army is 'sufficiently' trained and manned then we will declare victory and leave. With Nato or without.

"the Minister of Finance has held the entire share capital issued by the Bank."

The 'useless precautions' would have been the cat's ass on September 11, 2001. Such useless precautions would have avoided tens of thousands of deaths. Racial profiling can't accomplish anything but get you moving through the line faster.

I didn't realize the Spanish were trading beads for Gold and Silver.

Whats tragic about waiting in line?

Well said. We entered this mission without the wherewithall to support it and carry it through. Now we are short 1000 troops. Apparently we don't have 1000 troops available - wich means we underestimated our requirements by 30% - not to mention lack of rotary wings - or sufficient tanks - or appropriate APC's etc etc. ...But there the CAF is. I suspect that if the govt had committed 3500 troops we'd still be hearing about needing 1000 more. This sounds very much like Pattons game of 'Rock soup'

But we do have the legisltation. No court has struck it down and I have heard of no legal challenge to the 'Jurisdiction'. The Americans arn't challenging that jurisdiction either. I suspect that the boffins at Foriegn Affairs have gone over the act with a fine tooth comb to make sure there is nothing in it to spark a legal challenge. Thus the act is to prevent pollution - not stake claim. Nothing wrong with that either - in fact why else would there be any need for 'jurisdiction'?. But the effect of the act is the same as claiming the NWP to be Canadian internal waters - though certainly not described as such. Vessels entering, both foriegn flagged and Canadian flagged, must meet certain requirements. If they meet them, then Canada will grant permission to enter. If they don't meet them then Canada will deny permission to enter. ...But, as M.Dancer has shown, we have not claimed the waterway.

I understand your point. I was addressing M.Dancer's point that ''Canada has not introduced any legislation claiming the waterway.'' The Arctic Waters Polution Prevention Act in no way 'claims' the NWP as Canadian - but it doe's claim jurisdiction over the waters. Of course, the NWP is an international waterway. We only claim the conditions that vessels may transit it. In effect we claim control of the passage.

But, via the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, Canada indirectly claims jurisdiction. Vessels cannot enter the various 'Safety Zones' without permission - or, more exactly, Canada claims the right to deny transit to whoever doesn't conform to the provisions of the Act. AWPPAct See Shipping Safety Control Zones Order of the Act, particularly the Map at the bottom of that page.

with voting?

Okay. So the cartoons really have nothing to do with Islam and Muslims. Too bad neither the complainant, Argus nor the AHRC share that interpretation.

No, there are no terrorists who are Muslims. Not a single one. There cetainly are terrorists who profess to be muslims just as there are murderers and pedophiles and fraudsters who profess to be Christians. If the movie script somehow claims that the antagonist is bad because he is Russian, then yes, potential human rights case.

I don't need to examine the cartoons. The complainant feels the cartoons expose mulsims to hatred and contempt. Wether I agree or not, or wether you agree or not is niether here nor there. He need not seek my opinion, or yours, or the Prime Ministers on the matter. He filed a complaint on the matter - as is his right as a citizen of Canada.

An enticement for Mexican expansion - but no indication of the Kaisers dreams of North American involvement (beyond stealing our word for twenty)

True. Which is why I have not filed the complaint. The complainant did - not me. Ysee, He suggests that Levant violated the Act in that publishing the cartoons will expose him and others of his religion to hatred and contempt. Considering your earlier post of 10:37am today: I believe he (the complainant) may actually have a point.

And if you found that the Cartoons were unacceptable reasons to kill people, how would this affect your view of Muslims?

Ah. So its a forgone conclusion that the AHRC will find for the complainant. It's a done deal.

How so? What action has AHRC taken in indicate they are mightily trying to shut Levant down?

Perhaps the complainant is a lousy debater? Perhaps he is in awe of Levants debateing skills? Perhaps he thinks Levant smells bad and can't remain in the same room with him? Perhaps he thinks Levant and witless fool not capable of civil debate? Pick a reason...any reason will do. Also, He's not 'fascistically' shutting anyone down.

But you're missing the point of the complaint. It's not that the prophet is ridiculed - but that Muslims are terrorists.