dizzy

There was never any suggestion on my part that this wasn't true. I'm simply illustrating that intranational divisions exist much the same but under different banners in both countries.

I don't know what this means. Are you implying that there isn't a black/white tension in the US that mirrors the two solitudes in Canada?

His point still stands. There are, in the US, variations of the two solitudes. The language around "Real America" is one example. The black vs white tension represents another.

hahaha! Try being from Toronto and living in Québec... This is the point, isn't it? People in Sicily hate people from Rome. The French look down on the Brits. People in Mumbai think little of people from Delhi. And it all works equally in the reverse. That's what being neighbours is all about.

I don't know anything about her other than what she wrote here, so I don't know that she was open-minded. For reference, I don't consider Michael Moore's views on Canada open-minded. They are just born from different stereotypes. I'm sorry that she was disappointed to learn that canadians are just like everyone else on this planet.

I certainly don't. Nor do I find it unusual. I've had conversations with people around the world who express a limiting worldview regarding their neighbours.

Do you feel this way solely about constitutional or all legal matters?

It sounds like she's surrounded herself with people who, not unlike most of your posts, are filled with smug superiority and two-dimensional views of the others. Sucks to be her, I guess. Why does it surprise her that American comparisons are common here? We live in a small country neighbouring the world's superpower. Europeans and Asians talk about one another all of the time, and that without the clear power disparity.

Are you suggesting that there should be two legal classes of Canadian citizenship?

The 'fuss' is because he's a canadian and so our media is covering his story. He's not unique in terms of his treatment, especially with respect to the CRC.

He's treated uniquely from the other prisoners at gitmo?

The child soldier agreement, if you're talking about the protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, was written in a more Geneva style pen. It's an example of my general frustration with the UN because it has more to do with countries taking responsibility for the membership of their official military organizations. Problem is, most child soldiers are indebted, indoctrinated, raped and/or drugged in by 'rebel' forces, not governments. I'm unclear why Omar should not be protected by the CRC, though. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve punishment for a crime for which he is convicted, but to be held 8 yrs without trial and in conditions that included torture is definitely beyond what Canada should have accepted when she turned her head away.

No one has a "Right" to be a terrorist, at least according to the legislative documents that I have been exposed to. Children, however, have a right to special recognition and treatment. I'm not defending Omar or the Khadr's or AQ. I'm trying to explore the correct application of law and international treaty.

AG, he may not have been protected under the Geneva Convention but, if we're talking UN treaties, he should have been under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, at least from a Canadian perspective (recognizing that the US, alongside Somalia, is one of two nonsignatories).

Just my perspective. But what about the content that followed? "That said, I do agree that Ontario is largely absent of a nationalist identity. But I consider this one of its strengths. It's why toronto is such a natural home for voices as varied as Rohinton Mistry, Michael Ondaatje, K'naan, Atom Egoyan, Jane Jacobs (RIP), etc. and events like Caribana and TIFF. It's an interesting challenge to be a good home for the global diaspora and to give it such a solid platform from which to articulate. " Not interested in recognizing Ontario and Toronto beyond the two-dimensional frame you've locked it into? Or is your sensibility like some 'anglo-canadians', who can't see the their nation's good with shitting on the US?

Hmm. As a torontonian living in québec, I'm often confronted by the two solitudes and, while I have some sympathy for both perspectives, I don't have a lot of tolerance for either. Comments like this are evidence that the ignorance and distrust rolls both ways. That said, I do agree that Ontario is largely absent of a nationalist identity. But I consider this one of its strengths. It's why toronto is such a natural home for voices as varied as Rohinton Mistry, Michael Ondaatje, K'naan, Atom Egoyan, Jane Jacobs (RIP), etc. and events like Caribana and TIFF. It's an interesting challenge to be a good home for the global diaspora and to give it such a solid platform from which to articulate.

Sovereigntist politicians are not the catalysts of québec nationalism, they are a reflection of it. Remember, like the rest of canada, québec is a liberal democratic entity. While federalists and unionists seem to be the main players in corruption here, I suspect this has more to do with access to power and less their political leanings.

Agreed on this point. Most leftists won't identify easily with ethnic nationalism when it is centered upon a white and western population. Call it post-colonial guilt.

Like you, I'm free to interpret intent based on behaviour or expressed attitude...

Your response is not congruent with my question. I can understand why you wouldn't want to answer it.

I'll answer your question. Yes, I'd find it insulting to erect a billboard of any person celebrating gun violence over the place wear jane creba was shot. I'd oppose it in a neighbourhood like Rexdale or Jane and Finch, where other lives were senselessly lost. Now, would you care to draw the connection between this and the mosque/cultural centre being proposed for lower manhattan? Now, would you care to answer mine? "Do you believe that all people who believe in the preservation of the US constititution, as is, are the same as Timothy McVeigh?"

Which is why I made an ideological comparison above. I assume you don't believe that all people who believe in the preservation of the US consititution, as is, are the same as Timothy McVeigh?

When you meet a western dressed muslim in your workplace, do you think of rag-headed terrorists packing bomb vests? I don't.

Agreed. I'm searching for the most even comparison between a radical 'sect' and the mainstream reality presented by the organizations offering to build this mosque and cultural centre. I can't imagine turning down the offer to convert a presently abandoned building into a striking model of modernity, complete with swimming pool and 500 seat arts performance venue, simply because the few involved with the WTC attack are affilliated, by way of a billion-strong religion, to the moderate, multi-faith organizations in question. Clearly the area's community BIA can't either.

Another example, based on ideology so that the comparison to religion is easier to digest, would be equating Timothy McVeigh to all american constitution protectionists. Would people have a problem if a mainstream organization, which existed to promote the preservation of the US Constitution through education and dialogue, decided to open a cultural centre near to the Oklahoma City government building?