charter.rights

Smoke shops aren't illegal, silly. Neither was the one in question. The problem everyone had with was they were saying that the land is not Six Nations land even though Six nations hold legal title. The rally was nothing but an excuse to harrass native people, just like all the rest.

So since you advocate violence as a means to solve problems, you would agree then that once you kicked in his door and started kicking in his teeth he would be justified in taking his shotgun out of his closet and blowing your guts apart? And likely even if he was charged, the courts would set him free - free to go back and do what he wishes with your daughter. Sounds like the sane thing to do......

Are you an expert on Hitler and Nazism, kengs333?

Now you're breaking down. You cannot be charged let alone convicted for public profanity and verbal abuse is only considered a crime when it is persistent and intense, such as in a domestic situation. You're really stretching. And so now not only do you introduce race as a rationalization for no laws being broken but are complaining that coming from an admitted fundie Christian background gives you permission to go "la la la la la la I'm not listening to you la la la la."? Typical, I suppose since fundie Christians never discuss anything with people anyway but are simply looking for a vehicle to pontificate. You are welcome to say what you wish - free speech and all that. However, you'll still be wrong no matter how you try to twist it to suit a warped POV.

In a moral and civil society regardless of the laws, one does not kill another human being. If they do, then something has gone awry in their thinking. That off-thinking is an illness, to believe that they can benefit from murder. The recidivism rate of criminals is about 75%. The justice system and the punishment jail time doesn't work and neither do laws as a deterrent. However, those who have been "treated" to restore their minds to sanity, have a much better rate of coming out of the system clean. So the real trick would be to recognize, diagnose and treat people before they resort to crimes or murder.

"if the boy is 16 and the girl is 14 there is no problem." YOU need to insert another quarter. You just proved me right.

You might want to check the law if you have any children. At the age of 14, children are legally independent from their parents. In any legal actions against them they are entitled to their own legal representation and are not obligated to comply with their parents' wishes. And yes at 14 they have the right to make that decision. Neither the courts nor their parents have a right to interfere. Sorry that is over YOUR head.

Murder is a mental illness. There are laws against it but they do no good, once the law has been broken. Rather if it was treated as the sickness it really was and made attempts to legislate mandatory help for those that might kill or harm or threaten another, then we might have a better chance at reducing murders before they occurred.

Not at all. At the age of 14, the courts and professionals have determined there is a cognizant ability to decide to have sex. That is why it is still legal where there are minor differences in age. The law also provides that under 14 they do not have the ability, and therefore must be protected. However, as the differences in age increase the lines become blurred. Can a 19 year old and a 14 year old really experience love and commitment enough to enjoy sexual relations? What about a 20 year old and a 15 year old? While I agree that a 40 year old and a 14 year old is morally repugnant, I believe that it may be an infringement of a woman's right to decide who she may copulate with. Certainly you would agree that the government doe not have a right to tell your wife or girlfriend who she can and cannot have sex with? And so this intrusion must be justified, either by protecting the child in the woman or staying out of her bedroom. Once it is determined that the girl IS really a woman, then we have no say, no matter how immoral a relationship might be.

Sure it is. It is the role of the opposition to try to keep the government in check from superfluous legislation. When a government is in a minority position then the citizenry has mandated that they do not entirely trust the governing party. That makes the role of the opposition much more important on critical matters. The government's role IMO is to protect the the lives of Canadians and to distribute the wealth. Unfortunately the right wing when given some power has always seem this as an opportunity to impose conservative Christian values on citizens. While there may be an argument to be made about 40 year olds with 14 year olds, is is neither an issue of safety or protection of the legal rights of the 14 year olds. It is nothing more than an attempt by the conservatives to legislate something that is morally repugnant. And before you attempt to argue that the under-14 laws are based on morality let me point out that professionals long ago determined that the majority of 13 year olds and under do not have the mental capacity to understand the implications of having sex, period. The law therefore protects their rights from exploitation.

Perhaps the NDP voting against the change is a result of being fed up with the Conservatives always trying to create new laws and regulations to legislate morality. That isn't the role of government IMO.

Ah, my friend....so now YOU introduce that race as an excuse to blame when really there were no laws broken by that woman. Trying use pasties to cover over that fact, and the fact that obscenities do not equal assault - ever - is pretyy amateurish and lame to say the least! More and more you remind of that fella I was talking about who constantly tried to direct the blame onto someone else instead of do the Christian thing and accepting responsibility for his mistake. If you take so much interest in that Jennie character then she obviously got your attention. And if you are so obsessed to see every post as resembling her then I suggest that you have lost power to her. No one can have that much importance that you would want to attack others in effigy unless she held (holds) some power over you. Perhaps she was a witch and cast a spell over you? Perhaps her black magic won over your pathetic fundie Christianity? In any case it appears that not only did you lose to her in what ever battle you seemed to be playing out, but you lost to a woman. To a fundie like you, that must be pretty devastating......huh?

Actually "free speech" doesn't allow the use of racist language when it is used to incite hate....or in McHale's case to incite others to commit mischief. There are limits on speech in a free society and white supremacists have to be careful that they become nothing other than a club. Their use of hate language is criminal. Obviously you have give this Jenny your power. Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining about her, or accusing me of impersonating her. Perhaps, I just have more respect for women than you do. That would be obvious given the positions you have taken elsewhere on this forum.

Free speech allows the use of profanity, anywhere in Canada. Telling McHale that he is fat is a truth. You would think he would easily recognize that as the truth. In any case neither is a crime. AngusThermopyle "So what of the assaults perpetrated by six nations." Only two people were charged with assault as far as I know and both of them were Six Nations people. However, from what I understand from the police press release other charges are still pending. I think McHale is on their list as well as Doug Fleming who clearly tackled Clyde Powless shown in one of the videos. Racism is a childish and ignorant viewpoint. We all know that finacial class is a much better way to classify people And no, I am not anyone named jenny. Funny. She must be one powerful woman since you all seem so afraid of her..... What's up with that?

My name isn't Jenny or anyone any of you know so please stop the incriminations. McHale is a racist and hangs out with known white supremacists. He is also a fundie and likes to hurl insults at non-Christians. He is not feared as a criminal but angers people by promoting his racism where he is not wanted. Unless Mchale was a party to the "set-up", then he must take responsibility for his own actions. The push was deliberate and no amount of "in-your-face" warrants his reaction to it. That would make him a criminal for sure, but he is loathed for his childish take on serious issues.

I don't see how McHale pushing someone resembles "set-up". The native woman was in his face, then he should have done the manly thing and turned and left. But instead his reaction seems to be that he pushed her away from him. That is assault no matter how you wrap it. I'm sure it will come out in court.

No matter how bad the language gets, it never warrants physical assault. If you did what they suggested as I did and slowed down the video it shows McHale stretched out his arm in the direction of the woman. That would constitute an assault. Who is Timmer? Oh wait I just revisited the site and see the videographer's name is "Tim".

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...ideoID=23565550 Some more video that shows that there was a push. The video caption says to slow it down just before the moment of contact. From what I see the guy in the foreground (who I think might be McHale) has his arm ourstretched in the direction of the native woman (facing the camera). Whether or not it was a violent push is something for the courts to decide, but it certainly looks like contact was made with enough force to make the woman loose her balance. You can make up your own mind on it, but I think there was a push...

So now that you have failed to derail this discussion let's get back to the questions you seem to be avoiding: From my previous post.... What laws were broken? I did an inet search and from what I can tell any laws there were broken there were charges laid and sent to court. Some of them have been found not guilty and the rest received reasonable sentences. So really, what laws are you talking about that have been flagrantly broken? Yet...that McHale fella is interfering with the lives of other Canadians, in and around Caledonia in order to push his personal political agenda, despite being told by many Caledonians publicly that he is not wanted there. As well, now McHale has been banned from Caledonia because the OPP made a deal with him which I understand he now wants to renege on. So I wonder what goes through a guy's mind that says he wants the police to enforce the law, yet who quickly refuses to abide by the law. I also understand that there may be an assault charge coming and it seems McHale is a bit of a hypocrite in saying he didn't assault the woman while there is credible video evidence that proves he did. Do you suppose McHale doctored that video on his own website to edit out the actual assault? And don't you think it a bit ironic that the guy lied in the public forum while trying to show the OPP are being truthful? Lots of questions come out of this affair in my perspective. McHale's lack of credibility is no longer unanswered.

What "work" are you talking about? Unemployment isn't that high in Canada and on some First Nation reserves the unemployment rate is as high as 80%. Are you suggesting that First Nations leave their reserves and flood the cities like refugees? That would only make things worse in our cities, let alone more homeless people sleeping on the streets...and ...quite possibly it would increase the need for social assistance.

Education is important but poverty breeds far more problems than a lack of education. Poor people either give up entirely, or they go on a rampage. First Nations in general are third world status in my perspective and that should be one of the focuses. Just like any town needs economic development, I think First Nations need to have their own sources of EC. I don't think the 28 mil is for anything more than one claim. Does anyone know the details of the offer? (I'm not sure what you are saying in the last part. You kinda lost me. Can you explain it a bit more please? McHale is a guy, not a woman, I think.)

If I said you reminded me of Jesus would you still think it was an attack. Yeh I thought so.... You remind me of someone I knew (and certainly wouldn't associate with at this time in my life). You seem to share a number of ideas. Since I don't know you personally, all I can do is draw from my reference and try to match a personality. Right now you remind me of a 8 year old girl who used to say "la la la la la la I'm not listening to you.... la la la la". And rather than discussing you, let's get back to the subject matter, please. It is far more interesting.

The question of Dianetics as a religion or a science is often debated. However, scientists are just beginning to understand a modicum of the idea of cellular memory so on this point the jury is still out. We do know that there have been some successful studies at John Hopkins concerning the use of prayer in surgery (most patients healed about 30% faster than other patients) and therapeutic touch does have a place in healing arts. So I suppose we could continue to debate that possibility that if external forces have a positive affect on the body, then internal forces may have an eqal or better force on ones own health. The proof is that we do know that there are causality relationships between say stress and heart problems, or through mental depression and physical symptoms. That is to say that it is common knowledge that there is a relationship between mental illness and physical problems. So is it a long stretch to suggest that there may be a relationship between spiritual illness (even simply suggesting these might be moral problems ethical for the atheists) and mental or physical problems? And if we can be effected negatively by those components then could a positive spiritual outlook not also have a positive effect on not only us but others around us? As I understand the Dianetics, it suggests these connections are not simply reactive but intentional. I would suggest that we sometimes call them other things like "fortitude". "perseverance" or "luck" and when good fortune comes our way we are quick to assume that it did not come directly from us but from some other synchronizations in the universe happening either in random, or despite the forces that normally work against us. So to the initiating question "Is Scientology dangerous?" I suppose that it depends on whether we fear that something more is at play, and whether we can hold faith in an evolving science that some soothsayers hinted at eons ago? And if what we don't know can hurt us, then I suggest the answer really is in studying Scientology in full, instead of making random comments about it and acting as if we are an authority on morality, or spiritual evolution because one thinks he has the corner on its antithesis. That is as silly as saying that he knows pizza tastes having never eaten it, because he once ate spinach.

What a most pedantic reply to some very poignant observations. That seems to be an evolving pattern with you. Are you hiding something? You sound like someone I know who was kicked out of our Church for trying to take over minister's job. This guy had a Jesus complex, tried to single people out in his Bible classes and even likened himself to Martin Luther King Jr. What a moron that guy was and now I understand he is peddling internet porn on a number of sites and passing it off as religious art......what a joker, huh?

What laws were broken? I did an inet search and from what I can tell any laws there were broken there were charges laid and sent to court. Some of them have been found not guilty and the rest received reasonable sentences. So really, what laws are you talking about that have been flagrantly broken? Yet...that McHale fella is interfering with the lives of other Canadians, in and around Caledonia in order to push his personal political agenda, despite being told by many Caledonians publicly that he is not wanted there. As well, now McHale has been banned from Caledonia because the OPP made a deal with him which I understand he now wants to renege on. So I wonder what goes through a guy's mind that says he wants the police to enforce the law, yet who quickly refuses to abide by the law. I also understand that there may be an assault charge coming and it seems McHale is a bit of a hypocrite in saying he didn't assault the woman while there is credible video evidence that proves he did. Do you suppose McHale doctored that video on his own website to edit out the actual assault? And don't you think it a bit ironic that the guy lied in the public forum while trying to show the OPP are being truthful? Lots of questions come out of this affair in my perspective. McHale's lack of credibility is no longer unanswered.