KeyStone

I called them nutbars. That is hardly providing an excuse. Oh look, we have a Jewish spiritual leader praying for the deaths of all Palestinians. Does this mean we can label ALL Jews as Islamophobes, and assume that they are always in the wrong? Does this mean, we can say that there are those that would have a holocaust against the Palestinians if left unchecked? No, because they are nutbars with very little power, and not reflective of the people as a whole. It is not the good Jews vs the bad Arabs, it is the moderates against the extremists.

Harper has said that Jews are the only people who are under threat. Yes, there are nutbars that would like to kill all the Jews, but no one with any power. There are also Israeli nutbars who would like to kill all the Palestinians. There are also Christian nutbars who would like to kill all the Gays. There are also KKK nutbars who would like to kill all of the above.

You don't even believe that. How many Arab votes do you think Harper had before this speech exactly? He isn't losing any votes, because he never had them. The Arabs are generally either NDP, Liberal or more likely disengaged from the whole process. Besides which, it is not just about the vote, it is also about the volunteers, the donations and the influence that Jewish Canadians wield. They are easily the most powerful lobby group in Canada.

Nice try Argus, but you can't have it both ways. Either Israel and Jews are intertwined or they are not. Harper, the CJC, and B'Nai Brith have all been suggesting that an attack on Israel, is an attack on Jews. So, you can not now seperate the two, to suggest that a pro-Israel policy is not likely to win Jewish votes, and call it anti-semitism. It is intellectually dishonest, and I think if you take a step back you will recognize that.

the growing Muslim voters in Canada, who, for the most part, despise Israel - and Jews. Soon, there will be three times as many. The Jewish vote is not all that important in the general scheme of things. Those who want to pander to ethnics would do better to suck up to the Muslims, as the Liberals and NDP do. "Most of the Jewish vote in Canada, as I understand it, tends to go to the Liberals, not the Tories. Jews in Canada tend to be fairly liberal minded." Well, historically it has been true that the Jewish vote has gone to Liberals, but that has changed under Harper. Ignatieff's 'war crime' comment helped shift more to the Conservatives such as the odious Schwartz and Reisman. Votes that can be shifted from the Liberals to the Conservatives are quite valuable. "the growing Muslim voters in Canada, who, for the most part, despise Israel - and Jews. " A fairly horrible and bigoted statement to suggest that most Muslims despise Israel and Jews. Harper may feel the same though although he is politically savvy enough not to say such a thing. "There are now twice as many Muslims in Canada as there are Jews." Yes, but they don't participate in the political process nearly as much as Jews. They are also not as powerful and influential. "The Jewish vote is not all that important in the general scheme of things." The vote is not huge, but not insignificant. They also donate, volunteer, and assist in other ways, which helps considerably. The Jewish voters in Canada, have always had a significant impact on Canadian elections, because they are well-organized, and very engaged in Canadian politics. The Muslims are not.

"Nonsense, how does it 'shame Canada' to stand up against anti semitism, his speech was excellent, if this is 'shaming Canada' - bring it on." Harper is standing up against anti-semitism, and that's fine. The problem is that he is also standing up against what he calls 'new anti-semitism' which basically means criticism of Israel. The logic he attempts to extend is that Israel is good, Arabs and Persians are bad, so therefore if you oppose anything Israel does, you must be anti-semitic.

Keep it Simple. Here are a few of the many problems with Harper's speech "And let us not forget that even now, there are those who would choose evil and would launch another Holocaust, if left unchecked." Who would launch another holocaust? No one has suggested that. Even the most generous translation of Ahmadinejad still limits his antagonism towards Israel and not all Jews. It is a territorial dispute, not a call for genocide. "there are those who reject the language of good and evil. They say that the situation is not black and white, that we mustn’t choose sides." That is because it is not black and white. He wants to suggest that Israelis are good and all Arabs and Persians are bad, but that simply isn't the case. When you are killing innocent children, no matter what the reasons are, it is grey at best, and certainly not white. "Anti-Semitism has gained a place at our universities, where at times it is not the mob who are removed, but the Jewish students under attack." Sorry I didn't realize we had a Jewish version of Kent State. Students are protesting Israel. The Jewish students that are antagonized are the ones that choose to confront the anti-Israel protesters, in the hopes of goading them into doing something stupid so they can catch it on camera. And yes, with every passionate movement, there are some within the crowd who takes things too far. I am sure you will hear much hatred of the US, if you go to a rally protesting something the US is doing. I am sure you will hear much hatred of China, if you go to a Falun Gong rally. “One ruthless champion of that ideology brazenly threatens to ‘wipe Israel off the map,’ and time and again flouts the obligations that his country has taken under international treaties. I could go on, but I know that you will agree on one point: that this is all too familiar." You see, this is complete bullshit. The translation is wrong. There is no attack against Jews. He does not threaten, he says it should be wiped off the map. There is a difference. If I say that liquor stores SHOULD give beer away for free, I am not threatening to steal the beer, or advocate legislation to make it so. This is pure antagonism of Iran and Ahmadinejad for political purposes and nothing else. “Harnessing disparate anti-Semitic, anti-American and anti-Western ideologies, it targets the Jewish people by targeting the Jewish homeland, Israel, as the source of injustice and conflict in the world, and uses, perversely, the language of human rights to do so. Here, Harper takes a page straight from B'Nai Brith, as he attempts to make Jews and Israel intertwined such that one can not possibly criticize Israel without being an anti-semite. “We must be relentless in exposing this new anti-Semitism for what it is. Of course, like any country, Israel may be subjected to fair criticism. And like any free country, Israel subjects itself to such criticism — healthy, necessary, democratic debate." Yes, there are good people in Israel who criticize it, but when an Israeli or the IDF commit a crime, Israel refuses international investigation, and does its own farcical investigation which nine times out of ten exonerates itself, and the other time, it gives the perpetrator a mild slap on the wrist. So, yes Harper was an embarrassment. Reminds me a lot of Bush and his good against evil mentality.

Arguably, one can say that the state of Israel is under threat, but to suggest that Jews worldwide are the only people under threat is absurd? Roma are constantly under threat around the world, as are homosexuals.

I didn't realize it was one or the other. So, we either have a country where we chop off the heads of gays, or we have a country where Israel can do no wrong? How in the hell did you pass the LSAT with logic like that? I hope other cultures share many of the values that Canada has. But if they aren't there yet, I don't dismiss their right to exist, nor their right to be treated with dignity. Nor, do I paint all Palestinians with the same brush because of the actions of a few.

Interesting, in the game of chicken to see just how far each one will go to win Jewish support in Canada, it appears that Harper has won the game of chicken, and Ignatieff is backing off, and going for a more moderate approach. Very inconsistent, but that's the Liberals for you.

Ahh, the common tactic of decrying any recognition of the power of the Jewish lobby as anti-semitic conspiracy theories. How insightful and unexpected.

"Harper has taken a principled stand and he is willing to take the hits for it." That's certainly how he is trying to sell it. I suppose if you believe that Israel represents all that is good and decent in the world, that's accurate. My suspicion is that it will help Harper in terms of voters, donations and influential allies. It certainly raises the bar in terms of pandering to Israel, not sure if Iggy can top that. "Harper's position is unambiguous, unequivocal and nuance-free. His speech is in the public domain domestically and internationally. He knows his comments will draw compliments and condemnations but obviously that did not stand in his way to be clear about where he stands. It took a lot of guts to speak as he did about what's happening in our universities and at the UN." Well, it was a calculated risk. Let's not confuse personal integrity with tactical political ambition. "Here is a Prime Minister that has laid out in frank terms how he sees it, the consequences to his administration be damned. I hope everyone will read his speech. Seldom do we hear a leader speak so candidly. Stop painting him out to be a hero. The pro-Israel lobby groups have huge power in Canada and he has just solidified their support for the next election and beyond. This is a tactical move all the way. Those that do not support everything Israel does are unlikely to be Conservative supporters, so he loses nothing. The Liberals on the other hand have been able to retain some moderates. Iggy now has to either concede the Israeli lobby to the Conservatives, or step up his own Israeli pandering to such a degree as to ostracize the remaining moderates loyal to the Liberals.

If by right, you mean obtaining the support of Canadian Jews, then yes he is quite courageous. It doesn't take a lot of courage to stand up for Canadian Jews these days. In fact quite the opposite. Would love to see a politician stand up for the Roma for a change. There is a group that was exterminated, just like the Jews, but they weren't given a homeland and continue to be persecuted around the world. Where are the politicians standing up for them?

Say what? Harper is pandering to Israel simply because he understands and respects the power of Jewish lobby groups in Canada. Ignatieff is pandering just as hard, and I'm not sure what dictators you think he is supporting. Harper is basically daring Ignatieff to criticize him for losing the UN seat, now that he is using defense of Israel as a reason. Being a democracy does not always mean that a country is in the right. Not having democracy does not always mean a country is in the wrong. To suggest that either side is blameless in this conflict is absurd. Unfortunately, none of the Canadian politicians are able to recognize that.

No, having an accent doesn't mean that the people weren't born here. But with the exception of a few accents (First Nation, French), it is a reasonable assumption that if they have an accent, they have spent a great deal of time in another country. No, just because I say it isn't racism (or your little website), does not mean that it isn't racism. However, just because you say that it is racism, doesn't mean that it is racism. There is no Pope of racism, which means there is no overall authority to define what is and isn't racism. On that basis, I don't believe that it is racism. Regardless of the label, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it, and will continue to do so. So, regardless of your 'racist' label which you hand out like flyers at a rave, the action of engaging probable new Canadians about their culture, is wrong, if it makes new Canadians feel more excluded than included. If I see a poll of new Canadians that shows that an attempt to engage in conversation and learn about their culture offends, hurts them and makes them feel excluded, I may change my views. If however, it's simply a lot of busybody ivory tower folks, who are looking for excuses to write academic papers and get contracts in sensitivity training, then I'm unlikely to change. Have any of these superbrains actually talked to new Canadians or do they just decide what new Canadians like and dislike based on a priori deduction?

Harper has just come out saying that Canada's staunch support for Israel is the reason that we did not get the rotating seat on the UN security council. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Harper+says+Canada+will+stand+Israel/3794912/story.html In the article, he uses some pretty strong language, to make Canada's position unambiguous. "Canada has refused to 'pretend' it is being an honest broker on Israel" "anti-Semitic ideologies target the Jewish people in their “homeland” of Israel and uses the “language of human rights to do so.”" "as long as I am prime minister, ....Canada will take that stand, whatever the cost." "there are those who would “choose evil” and would launch another Holocaust, if left unchecked." "is particularly disturbing that anti-Semitism has gained a place at “our universities,” where at times, it is not the “mob who are removed, but the Jewish students under attack" "Jews today in many parts of the world and many different settings are increasingly subjected to vandalism, threats, slurs, and just plain, old-fashioned lies" This comes just two weeks after Ignatieff condemned a fellow Liberal for suggesting that we should not be afraid to criticize Israel. He seemed to imply that there was never any reason to criticize Israel, and that we stand shoulder to shoulder with them at all times. The pandering for the support of the Jewish lobby in Canada has reached unprecedented levels.

First of all, I asked you to explain it to me. I didn't say please find me a quote on the internet that says it is racism. Firstly, it is presumptuous and erroneous to assume someone was not born in Canada simply because their skin is not white. I don't know if I would throw out the term racist, as I prefer to reserve that for the really bad people. However, if a person has an accent (regardless of skin colour), it isn't absurd to expect that they are from somewhere else originally. Furthermore, the implication that asking someone where they are from implies that they don't belong here is absurd. That certainly isn't the subtext. Let me tell you about racists. They don't talk to new Canadians unless they are forced to, and they certainly don't ask where they are from and make an attempt to show that their culture is welcome here. We live in Canada, not the US. Therefore, it is alright to recognize and appreciate the differences in people, instead of trying to pretend that they don't exist, to expedite the assimilation process. You need to stop and think for yourself Charter, instead of just reading websites and accepting it as fact.

Why don't you explain to me why it is wrong to initiate a conversation about someone's homeland and culture?

Your poorly informed rants against socialism, and thinly veiled suggestions that the US should overthrow Chavez are curious for someone who is 'radically left'. First of all, no nation has any business interfering in the governing of a democratically elected leader, unless they are engaging in genocide, or they are harming people outside of their borders. There are about a hundred countries in Africa and the Middle East with egregious human rights abuses, but you single out Venezuela as needing regime change? As for the article itself, it's absurd. The author cherry picks GDP, to suggest that the sky is falling in Venezuela. Here are the last five years: 2005: +16.8% 2006: +9.3% 2007: +10.3% 2008: +8.4% 2009: 4.8% 2010: (projected): -1.5% In fact, since 2005, Venezuela has one of the highest GDP growth rates in the world. And this excuse of a journalist (probably funded by NED)suggests that Venezuela is collapsing? Absolutely laughable. Canada's GDP is projected to contract by 2.4%, but no one is calling for regime change here. Incidentally, Chavez is spending the bulk of the money on the people of Venezuela. Instead of the money going to foreign companies, such as Total SA, Exxon Mobil and Conoco Philips, that money is now used by the state to provide education, healthcare, unemployment and social security benefits - and infrastructure that will help Venezuela for generations. The Western media does everything that it can to discredit Chavez because they are horrified that he has the audacity to suggest that the proceeds of Venezuelan oil and minerals should go to the people of Venezuela instead of foreign companies.

Asking a person where they are originally from, particularly if they have an accent, is not racist. It is an attempt to show interest in their culture and history. If you wish to water down the term racist, to include remarks that may offend overly sensitive people, who jump at any recognition of difference, then the term racism will lose all its meaning, and we will all be racists in one form or another. I suppose those that are politically correct don't bother to talk to newcomers at all.

I can't imagine anytime that the US had the world's best brand - other than just after World War 2. As for Canada, our popularity is sinking fast, everywhere outside of Israel. I have to question the methodology involved. Perhaps as an environment to do business, but otherwise - it's quite absurd. Futurebrand either has its own agenda, or some very questionable methods.

Come on Argus, Just say what you really want. Let's make the US and Israel the only permanent members of the security council. You don't denounce something just because you can't have your way all of the time. As for various regimes getting on committees, it's obvious you don't understand the process. The members of each region vote for the representative to the council. It's democratic. Democracy does not always work the way it is supposed to. However, I agree that the UN needs some reforms. The five permanent members no longer represent a well-balanced and powerful array of nations - France and the UK don't really need to be there - and Brazil and Japan should be on it. I would replace France and the UK with two seats for the EU, and add Brazil and Japan.

Kouvalis must be desperate for attention. He obviously fashions himself as the Canadian Karl Rove. The key difference of course, is that Karl Rove knows when to keep his mouth shut. The next campaign to hire Kouvalis, pretty much signals to the voters that the campaign is all about dirty tricks and not substance.

Both terms are mere adjectives, and not absolutes. For example, universal education provided by the state is socialist in nature. A real free market would remove standardization, regulation and the right to education and let everyone fend for themselves. That being said, on the scale of capitalism, Canada is probably in the top 20%, while on the scale of socialism we are probably in the middle.

So, basically you're suggesting that the situation between Japan and Russia is exactly the same as Israel and Palestine - and the only reason people bring up Israel so much is because they are anti-semites? Is that about right?