Visionseeker

As stated by a guy playing strip-poker in his skivvies with a nine high.

LOL!

Protection of the individual in civilized society is paramount. One cannot be held to consent to dominion if one is to be a lesser member within it. That which seeks to lessen the individual is harmful to the dominion and must be prohibited for the benefit of the dominion and all individuals. This is the rationale that underscores hate crimes legislation. Those who argue against it (directly or indirectly) favour a collectivist interpretation where given collectives consent to dominion while others shall be subordinated to it. Maligning groups maligns the individual. IMO, one shouldn't waste their energies opposing anti-hate laws as it is in their best interests to oppose professions of hate.

Being sued or called before the HRC is not the same thing as being charged under 319; different standards, different level of offense.

Putting aside the notion of his prospects for rehabilitation, the US will eventually "move" on the file with or without the participation of Canadian authorities. Here's the scenario if the US goes it alone: 1- Khadr is removed from Gitmo and taken to Miami where he is taken into custody by Immigration Control and Enforcement (ICE); 2- ICE decides to a) release Khadr with conditions until his deportation proceedings (unlikely IMO) or b_) keep Khadr in detention until his immigration status is resolved (i.e. he is deported); 3- ICE investigates where Khadr has citizenship and determines that he holds no right of citizenship other than Canadian; 4- ICE secures a Deportation Order and accompanies Khadr on a flight from Miami to Toronto and drops him on the laps of Canadian immigration officials who have only the weakest and short-lived authority to detain him; 5- Within a week to a month Khadr is released, completely free to go wherever he wants and subject to no supervisory conditions whatsoever. Now, wouldn't it be better to accept facts and prepare a plan for his eventual return?

There are any number of methods that can be used that would see him immediately committed upon arrival. The most staight forward would be to have him evaluated at Gitmo and, if the assessment reveals that he represents an immediate danger to himself or the community by reason of mental illness, the Crown can secure an order that he be committed to a pshychiatric facility for treatment. You contradict your own argument. Indoctrination or "brainwashing" is a disorder that can be corrected when the victim is removed and protected from his/her controller(s). It matters not whether the planted beliefs are religious or otherwise, it's simply a matter of preventing their reinforcement and enabling self-scrutiny. Breaking the mould is actually the easy part once the therapist earns the victim's trust, picking-up the pieces after the break-through is the more complicated process. Well, he would need to be examined in order for an informed opinion/prognosis to be made. And that's where I propose we start. For we have to face the fact that he won't be held indefinitely in the US (the US could drop-him off at Pearson tomorrow if they wanted), so we might as well make proper preparations for his repatriation.

"Quacks", you are so right. That entire arm of our healthcare system sells nothing but snake oil. They cannot be trusted as they will turn on people like your completely lucid self and suggest that you have a severe inclination towards paranoia so as to allow psychopath roam free.[/sarcasm] I see exactly what you mean. If it wasn't for Joseph McCarthy we would've all been overrun by the Bolshevik bastards.[/sarcasm] Mindless gut following pseudo-conservative tripe. The "soft science" in this exchange is manifest in the rantings of a science denier who believes that his instincts are superiour to specialists with decades of experience. I pity you Argus, I really do. Because I know that you will never seek the help that you so richly require. Khadr is eventually going to be realeased. Accept it.

Only if the treatment fails.

To offer an abstract containing the unsupported hypothesis "The Iroquois Confederation was not an influence on the U.S. Constitution" is not very compelling. If, OTOH you were to share Loewan's arguments in support of this thesis we then might debate their merits. Wiki is great when acquainting oneself with the basics, but not so good when addressing contentious issues. Rakove would have us believe that the concept of influence must be confined to what is stated in the records of the constitutional debates. This is not only a very restrictive view, but one that flies in the face of common sense. Debates are about the exchange of ideas, not the attributing of their source. One can well imagine just how receptive an audience one would have at the time when beginning with "I've learned that the (stone age) savages...". Historians who deny any influence state that the principals had little contact or knowledge of "indian" culture. This is utter nonsense. Most of the revolutionary leaders had been part of the ruling classes who necessarily had indirect or direct contact with aboriginal communities to settle matters of trade, allegiance, intelligence, or settlement. It is a poor negotiator who does not learn all they can about their counterpart. Many of the Founding Fathers knew the Indians quite well. Franklin (for one) had many dealings with, and a great respect for the Haudenosaunee. He also learned a great deal from their governing structures and forwarded them as a solution to the pending French threat in 1754 at the Albany Congress where he argued for the unification of seven colonies ACCORDING TO THE MODEL OF THE CONFEDERACY. While Franklin's proposal was rebuffed, one participant (a future congressman and later to become the father of James Fenimore Cooper) highlighted two additional virtues of the Iroquois model: democracy and impeachment (read the Last of the Mohicans now that you know this and see if you don't look at the story a little bit differently). The idea that the revolutionary minds were in no way influenced by their contact with aboriginal communities is not only false, but fully contradicted by their own writings. I have many works I'd recommend, but I'll offer this link as an introduction: A NEW CHAPTER: Images of native America in the writings of Franklin, Jefferson, and Paine You use terms like "stone age savages" and then question the wisdom of universities, advance an abstract and wiki to support your bigotry and then gloat at the result? Well, I suppose your momma can find reason to be proud.

"Bring em on"!? Is that your public admission to being as equally clueless in affairs as the current President of the United States? Boy, don't you keep poor intellectual contemporaries. As for the rest of your reply, I shall not dignify it with a response.

I await ScottSA's meaningful and insightful reply.* *Please note: "meaningful and insightful" is not to be confused with "spiteful and hurtful".

I have to say that I'm a little concerned with the roll-out of this vaccine. It simply hasn't followed normal protocols and is seemingly being rushed into the fray. That being said, I know of no compelling clinical reason to avoid it, but am thankful nonetheless that the age of my girls will give me time to see what develops. But if my girls were older, I'd really have a problem on my hands. As for the doctor on City TV, my response would be that we don't have kool-aid in our house and make our decisions on the basis of reason, not fear. I'll the same, my investigations into the product do leave me leaning towards its use as the known contra-indicators are apparently limited.

ROTFLMAO! Good on ya ScottSA, one of the best laughs I've had from a board or e-mail in some time.

The Bloc is suffering from a two pronged shift in Quebec: the first is fatigue with the long Liberal-Bloc battle where the Conservatives are seen as a breaking of the mould (regardless of the policies); and the second is a more nefarious camp who see an opportunity for Bourassa's "profitable federalism" by supporting Harper. Do not think for a minute that the decline of the Bloc signals a growing love for Canada amongst the Quebec electorate who were "traditionally" Bloc supporters. What they want that Harper could give would tear this country apart. If it comes to this, I hope that Dion can somehow stand as the voice of reason that pulls us from the precipice. My unity clock is at 10:30 and fast approaching midnight.

Ownership by an individual is against their custom, but collective use and stewardship are a form of ownership in that responsibility for the land is assumed by the community for its benefit and those of future generations. So reserves where a sort of open concentration camp used to herd the conquered masses then? NOT! Land rights were acknowledged by the Crown in successive covenants. For instance, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 states: "And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our Colonies, that the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds..." "And We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of our Displeasure, all our loving Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved, without our especial leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained... And We do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons whatever who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any Lands within the Countries above described. or upon any other Lands which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements." At the risk of repeating myself "...should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds..." I don't know about you, but I don't occupy the land I go hunting on. And the lands in dispute are those that were settled by non-natives (or about to be settled) that were never ceded to the Crown. They have compelling claims for land other than which they "settled" because they have a contract that says so. And nearly 500 claims have been resolved that acknowledge this (while some 700 or so remain outstanding). The argument you advance is not supported in law and that makes it lawless. That you further advocate the use of violence to advance a lawless cause makes you a bandit. Successive governments have turned a blind eye to their obligations with First Nations whenever they came into conflict with Orangist ambitions. Through the course of time, the influence of Orangist chauvinism has waned and it is becoming more politically tenable for governments to begin to do right by such obligations. Unfortunately, this has coincided with a resurgence of sorts of the Orangist crowd who now seek to subvert the meaning of "equality" and try rewrite history to suit their own subordinating ends; constantly and cowardly threatening to release the hounds (be they police or the military) to enforce their will. And, quite frankly, an ever growing population of aboriginal youth "can not stand this stuff anymore".

Well, considering that the Liberals have stood in power for 70 of the last 106 years, this would suggest that our way of life is predominantly Liberal.

Ah yes, the rights of the individual as determined through public opinion. Kind of brings me back to those witch buring days. He is a member of Canadian society (born in Toronto), not an addition.

A fifteen year old indoctrinated from his earliest age isn't a fifteen year old as you would understand one. Dan Gardner makes an excellent point in comparing Omar Khadr with Ishmael Beah And who have you actually heard from? Do any of these people constitute mental health professionals who've had the benefit of examining Khadr? Yup. De-programming and post-traumatic stress treatments never work. It's all just a great big scam don't you know?[/sarcasm] Oh I see, those namby-pamby liberal therapists with all their books and research to back-up their knowledge and skills are know-nothings when stacked-up against your ever intuitive gut-instincts. You know no more than the rest of us what Khadr would or would not do upon his eventual release and your omniscient professions carry a heavy tone of fanaticism in their own right. When Khadr is released, I hope we commit what is necessary to help him rehabilitate. Perhaps he might eventually share his experiences with young people to show them just how destructive a force hate can be.

I remember when Entertainment Tonight first hit the airwaves and my father (quite prophetically) stated: [insert heavy French accent] "Fuck a duck! If they put this shit on the airwaves there will soon be no room for reality". With each "reality" program that gets released, I can't help but think of that prophetic statement. I have little time for TV (other than the Simpsons and my favoured sporting teams) and have removed myself from entertaining popular culture. Why? Because it's nothing but garbage. Thankfully, the idiot box has grown apart from me.

Well I think we follow the same stream on this regarding Liberal aims, but I have to disagree on your take of the Bloc and NDP. First, Jack needs to try and build in Quebec and get the most out of Mulclair. Its a foolish entreprise IMO, but one he has to entertain nonetheless. Second, in spite of Duceppe's personal motives, he has a party that has lost its purpose and is bleeding in the polls. His hold is severely weakened and electoral suicide is not in the offing for his clan. Of all the leaders, Duceppe is without question the weakest right now.

Steyn, silly article!? Say it ain't so. I sometimes get worked-up about what Steyn commits to print, then I remember that he quit school at 16 and, as a result, I'm effectively reading a school newspaper column. To take Steyn seriously is to accept health advice from a bartender.

I see, 9/11 was the manifest failure of the courts. Give me a freaking break! The States had all the tools it ever needed before 9/11. Their weakness was internal communication which, from what I understand, they've only exasperated in creating the Department of Homeland Security.

Quite frankly, if I'm Harper's office I would do nothing to prevent the meeting. Doing so would generate extremely bad press so I wouldn't raise a hair to stop it. As most here can attest, there are enough fundamentalist in this country to pander to in order to let the matter play its course.

Mikedavid00, I feel compelled to caution you that making patently false and defamatory statements about someone in a public forum constitutes slander and may very well render you liable for damages. What's worse, your victims have all the funds they would ever need to fund counsel who would be more than happy to obligate you to accept facts and correct your record. Just some free advice.

Parsing one of my posts in another thread: Khadr didn’t just decide to toss a grenade on that fateful day; he was groomed to do so almost from the time he was born. Most here should be somewhat aware of his father's exploits and should consider that Omar was in terrorist training camps from the age of 7. Now I ask you, if Omar were a white boy trained by his reclusive white supremacist parents to fight the government from the age of 7, and then subsequently killed an ATF agent during a raid on their compound when he was 15, would we vilify him so? Ah, if you don’t see my logic, maybe Dan Gardner can succeed where I failed. Bring the boy home and do what we can to rehabilitate the poor abused soul.