kimmy

One thing I haven't seen mentioned in this discussion was that there seems to be considerable doubt whether the Taliban regime constituted a legitimate government. They were not recognized as such by the UN, and even in its salad days, only 3 governments (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates) recogized the Taliban as a legitimate government. Even of the world's Islamic states, only a small fraction recognized the Taliban. Perhaps this has some implications in a discussion of how Taliban fighters are to be classified? Army Guy has stated that many of the Taliban fighters were not even Afghans, and he's right. Not only did many of the foreign volunteers who came to fight against the Soviets stay, but foreign zealots came to join the Taliban afterward. Army Guy has stated that the Taliban employed secret police to keep the populus in line, and he is essentially correct... the detail I'm not sure of is whether these people were literally "employed". Nonetheless, if you were an Afghan doing anything contrary to the Talibans' decrees, you lived in fear that an observer would report your activities to the Taliban and you'd face extreme punishment for it. It is, as I understand it, much like the way that Soviet citizens lived in constant mistrust of their acquaintances and co-workers for fear that they might be opening themselves to a KGB observer who'd report their slightest indiscretions to the authorities. This is not post-9/11 propaganda; this is information that I learned of before 9/11. In fact, just days before 9/11, the Ottawa Citizen's Weekend Reader feature published a big feature on a female Canadian journalist who'd lived undercover in Afghanistan to report on the repulsive regime in power. This is not merely a question of tolerating or respecting different cultures. There are some things that are intolerable; the Taliban was one of them. Anybody who believes in basic human dignity should be glad that the Taliban has been stomped down. -k

I'm not sure that "society" has any rights, at least in the context of this discussion. In situations when the child's rights and the parent's rights clash, we go to court, as a number of cases illustrate. They have a duty, to the child, to do that. I don't think you'll find it is enshrined anywhere as a 'right'. I think you're mistaken. 8 seconds with Google brought me to... Parental rights and the charter A Christian site, to be sure, but one with a Supreme Court ruling to support its view: That was from a 1995 ruling regarding (surprise) Jehovah's Witnesses and medical treatment. There's certainly some wiggle-room, but the key point is that the parents' rights to make decisions about their children has been ruled to be protected by the Charter. Close. I am saying that just because they said, 'yes, this case is dire enough', doesn't mean that all subsequent cases must be equally or more dire. I think it's clear that the courts do consider there to be a parental right to make decisions regarding their children. Certainly not an absolute right, but one that the courts take very seriously. While the circumstances might not have to be as dire as a life-saving medical procedure, it is going to have to be something very compelling. Except that policy which challenges parents' rights is ultimately going to wind up in court at some point. -k

Why would I waste my time and energy trying to make you look ridiculous when you do such a superb job of it on your own. This wit of yours... that's like... ...that's just sad. -k

I am guessing you meant to say "Her opportunities for acheivement with the Liberals are limited only by her ability to win her seat and broader support within the party." No, I usually mean what I write, the occasional empty nostrum notwithstanding. My implication is that as long as she wins her set and is an asset to the party, she will be rewarded commensurately within the party eh. You're welcome to have your views... but that strikes me as a little naive. We've all seen the kind of factional strife within the party that emerged when it started to look like time for Chretien to hit the bricks... the kind of King-maker games that were played. If she ever wants to be leader, she'll need a "posse" within the party... and how many MPs would hitch their horses to her wagon (or whatever the metaphor is)" We seem to agree that she just hasn't got the prerequisites... how many people in the party will think differently? Surely there won't be many people within "the party of national unity" who see a unilingual anglo as a credible leader. I would also expect that her being given a top cabinet post on her first day in the party probably doesn't sit well with people who've devoted their whole careers to the party... I'm not sure how well she'll do once her patron PMPM retires. It'd be nice if this was a meritocracy... but the truth is, it's party politics in Canada, and I don't hold our major parties in very high esteem. -k

You put me in a difficult situation. As a happy-go-lucky agnostic, I'd really love it if the Young Earth Creactionists and the Snakehandlers and the Apocalyptic Pentacostals and the Christian Hardliners and the Islamic Fundamentalists would all just fuck off. But as someone who believes in the rule of law and the protection of individual rights, I'm kind of resigned to the fact that we're stuck with them. I'm definitely in favor of keeping crap science and intolerance out of public schools. However, I don't know that there's any law requiring children to take Biology in school, and I don't think there's any plausible way you can prevent parents from teaching their kids creationism once they get home from school. How about the Dar-al-Madinah mosque in Vancouver-- that's the one that gained notoriety after Vancouverite travel-enthusiast Rudwan Khalil turned up dead in Chechnya after a fight with Russian security forces. Sheik Younus Kathrada was (and might still be) under investigation by the RCMP to determine whether his sermons about Jews constituted hate speech. While personally I wouldn't mind a bit if the guy got hit by a bus, and I'm pretty sure his views aren't very conducive to the enlightened and peaceful society we all want, I don't personally feel comfortable with the idea that "the will of the people" should be able to shut him up. If his sermons cross the line, then his right to free speech has butted up against others' right to personal safety, and then that's something the courts can look into. Judges have lost a lot of sleep over that kind of decision, I'm sure. First a question, then an answer: Question: Which individual? Answer: Yes in proper cases. By "which individual" I assuming you're asking whether I mean parent or child. For purposes of this discussion we're talking about parents, right? As far as I know, parents *do* have the right to make decisions regarding the upbringing their children. You've pointed out that that right isn't all-encompassing or unlimited. But I believe the limitations on that right are determined by the constitution, not by the will of the majority. I'm no lawyer, but I believe the rules regarding what constitutes "proper cases" are already in place, and are rather narrow in scope. Not quite sure I follow. Are you saying that since the courts can order such a dramatic violation of religious freedom in dire circumstances, they might also be able to order less dramatic violations of religious freedoms in less dire circumstances? Don't get mad... once again I'm just trying to figure out what you're getting at. My view is that the "dire circumstances" part is kind of a prerequisite before any violating takes place. I feel that without a compelling reason, you can't go asking courts to consider limiting individual rights. -k

Meeeee: Economic Left/Right: 1.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.49 -k

I will explain it for you (using small words, so you can follow along.) Willy does not think Conservatives are evil. Willy was making fun of the left-wingers on this board who write "Liberal = good, Conservative = evil" messages. I hope that was clear enough for you to keep up with. It is not people like Willy who are holding back the Conservatives... it is people like you. -k

I am guessing you meant to say "Her opportunities for acheivement with the Liberals are limited only by her ability to win her seat and broader support within the party." And also by her inability to speak french. She started learning at least 32 years too late to develop the kind of fluency that it'll take to become Liberal leader. I don't think she would ever lead the CPC, and I don't think she has the prerequisites to lead the Liberals. That's not me being a partisan, that's me trying to be as objective as I can. I don't believe she will ever develop much credibility with francophone Canadians. She's now a high-ranking cabinet minister. That's probably the most she could realistically hope to achieve in any party in Canada. She was given an opportunity to reach that "glass ceiling" less than 2 years into her political career, and she took it. *maybe* she could have become a high-ranking cabinet minister as a Conservative, or maybe not... but she could and did as a Liberal. From the standpoint of building her political career, she's done as well for herself as she could have, in my opinion. That's not to touch on whether it was right or wrong or good or evil, that's just from the perspective of getting as high as she could on the totem pole of Canadian politics. -k

Are you sure it's sacrifice? Whose judgment shall prevail as to what kind of values may be presented to young minds?(1) I am confident that in some cases it is sacrifice. Please be more specific. I know you're not just talking about normal church-going people. I mean, as far as I know, every Prime Minister during my lifetime has been a practicing Christian (probably Catholic, yes?) so obviously just being raised in a religious tradition doesn't prevent someone from participating in society to the fullest. I know you're not talking about mainstream churches here. So what ARE you talking about? The will of the majority should prevail over individual liberty? Were we sufficiently confident that meat truly is dangerous, certainly. We already have this kind of rule for many things, don't we? We do. Recent cases regarding the medical treatment of Jehovah's Witness children certainly illustrate the point. But if you look at these decisions, I think you'll find that the court takes the freedom of religion very seriously, and only the clear danger to the child's welfare justifies the violation of the religious beliefs. I never argued any such thing. This discussion would go better if a priority were placed on not making up silly straw-man arguments. Secular human values don't need a 'fair shake'. Children need to be educated in a way which does not harm their ability to participate fully in society. I'm not trying to straw-man you. I'm just trying to get you to tell us what you're talking about. You seem to be itching to make an argument of some kind about this bit: ...so please, go ahead. -k

Read last para., post #8. This one? uh, I think he was referring to the Tamil's secessionist movement, not the Quebec one. I think he was referring to the Liberals shaping policy based on holding a few GTA seats rather than on principle. If someone who had no opinion at all on Quebec had written the quote you refer to, it would make complete sense and bringing Quebec into it would be completely irrelevant. But because it came from August, you apparently feel that bringing Quebec into it is a convenient way to dismiss his statement. So you dismiss the possiblity that unhelpful opinions from abroad may negatively affect he negotations? So you dismiss the possibility that the Liberals' position is based on politics and not doing what's right? Do you dismiss the possibility that this is a situation where being the voters' lackeys is a little less noble than you made it sound in the other thread? -k

If Martin goes against his personal pledge to Canadians, it'll be a damning indictment of Paul Martin as a man. After talking the memory of his father and about how he was raised to believe in high principles and the integrity of Canada's institutions, and about the honor of public service as a sacred trust and all that, and looking us in the eye while invoking all those things in his pledge to call an election within 30 days of the report... I think that only the puniest little man could go back on that promise. Politically, he could get away with it-- he only really wanted to serve a full term as PM anyway... if he can make this rickety thing he's built last for 4 years, he won't ever have to face the voters. But as a man who apparently cares about how people think of him? I don't think he'd ever live it down. I don't think Martin wants to be remembered as the man who begged Canadians to take him at his word, then reneged. -k

In a thread about Sri Lanka, you call a sovereignty movement a "psychodrama". Now, that's rich. Let me speak more precisely then: every action of the Canadian government on the wolrd stage need not be seen through the prism of Quebec soveignty. Who brought Quebec sovereignty into this? I'm not an expert on Tamil immigration patterns, but I believe it's Toronto ridings we're discussing here. The contention in this thread seems to be that the Liberals are unwilling to join the rest of the civilized world in classifying the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist group because it could cost them votes in certain GTA ridings with large Tamil populations. In another thread, Sweal, in response to the charge that "winning and staying in power is all that matters" to the Liberals, you replied "It is precisely this characteristic that makes the Liberal party such an boon to Canada... The Liberals are the voters' gopher. Our lackeys, our national concierge service." Which sounds like a fine idea (if you're a prairie populist...) but this is what it looks like in practice. -k

Wait... David Orchard won't be voting conservative?! That's unheard of. I imagine next you'll be telling us that they've invented machines that can go to the moon or carriages that don't need horses. You kids with your outlandish ideas. -k

Well... I guess cheerleading for the Norwegians could be considered "involvement"... -k

That would make them guerilla fighters, not terrorists. Guerilla fighters attack strategic targets. The American revolutionaries attacked strategic targets. Strategic targets. There's a big difference between an aircraft carrier or naval harbour compared to a village market. Strategic targets. Strategic targets. The firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg, and the nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been hotly debated in recent years as atrocities. ...on strategic targets. -k

How can you accept the sacrifice of young minds so heartlessly? Are you sure it's sacrifice? Whose judgment shall prevail as to what kind of values may be presented to young minds? Would it be fair to argue that children should not be fallowed to eat meat products until they are adults, so that they can decide for themselves whether "meat = murder"? Surely if one can argue that imparting religion to kids doesn't give secular human values a fair shake, one could also make the argument that vegetarian beliefs aren't getting a fair shake in our meat-loving culture either. -k

I think the answer to that is fairly obvious. -k

I just had to uncheck my daylight savings box to make the time be correct. Which is odd, because my time seemed correct last time I noticed. Aren't we now in daylight savings? -k

I take it that this thread is the only response I'm going to get to my "what's so great about Paul Martin?" queries. Very well. "Deference to the U.S., shrunken Fed. government, more input from religions, reduced social benefits." I think differences between the CPC and LPC on issues of "shrunken gov't", "input from religions", and "reduced social benefits" are largely hype. Basically due to a combination of political pragmatism and the courts, I don't think you'd see the Conservatives attempt anything very dramatic on any of these fronts. I think the Conservatives would be more likely to review existing programs with a critical eye toward efficiency. I think that the Conservatives are less likely to attempt a big showpiece program (think National Daycare) that has the potential to turn into a big disaster (think Gun Registry.) As for "Deference to the US" ...well, after reading PatM's recent posts regarding "deep integration", well, I'm not sure the Liberals are the tireless defenders of sovereignty that they wish people to think they are. I'm concerned at how long it took Paul Martin and Bill Graham to get their story straight on missile defence, and concerned that Paul Martin's decision appears to have been dictated to him by the Quebec Youth Wing of the party, and ultimately I'm pretty confident that we'll discover that by hook or crook we're in BMD anyway. My feeling is that on issues of sovereignty (as on pretty much everything else) the Liberals are far more show than substance. People immediately think of Carolyn Parrish and her antics, but that's just a side-show for the easily distracted. -k

I'm all for the exchange of our oil and even our seafood. But I will fight with all my strength to protect the sovereignty of my lumbar. -k

And politicians always tell the truth. Mr Cotler's sudden enthusiasm for Cadman's private members' initiative must be a coincidence. After all, governments back private members' initiatives all the time. This is more like it. And no, I don't think less of Cadman if he did push for concessions (as the NDP did successfully, or as Kilgour did unsuccessfully.) It's an issue that's important to him, he's worked for it for years, and he's got a chance to make it happen, of course he should go for it. -k

I'll just mention that Edmonton probably also belongs on your list of exceptions. Aside from Kilgour and McLellan, the Liberals were utterly stomped in every Edmonton riding. Given the bizarre riding boundries that have been drawn in the greater Edmonton area (and elsewhere no doubt), I'm not sure that McLellan's "Edmonton Center" riding can be considered a downtown riding. Last year during the election, I bicycled through 3 different ridings on my 15 minute bike-ride to work each day: Rahim Jaffer's Edmonton Strathcona riding, James Rajotte's Edmonton Leduc riding, and David Kilgour's Edmonton Beaumont riding. (while some farmer living 30 miles out of town was voting for the same candidates as me, people just a couple of blocks north or east had completely different lawn signs. go figure.) Aside from oddly-shaped ridings, I wouldn't take McLellan's victory as support for the Liberals among downtown voters. I'd take her victory as support for one of the highest-profile politicians in the country. As for Edmonton Beaumont, it's nowhere near downtown. I don't attribute Kilgour's win to his party affiliation... I attribute it to the fact that he's David Freakin' Kilgour. Watever hapless shmuck the Liberals parachute in to run in Kilgour's place is going to be obliterated. So will Anne McLellan, I suspect. She was much appreciated when she was Health Minister... but now she's Deputy Prime Minister, and I think that's probably a pretty thankless task. I don't think anybody actually knows or cares what Deputy PM does... its only merit is that it "sounds kinda important." Anyway, this is rather off the topic of the thread, but I had to mention this. I've heard before of people refering to Edmonton as being an island of Liberalism in Alberta. Maybe in contrast to Calgary, but that's about it. Not at the federal level, anyway. -k

ok, I've got one. I think that if the Tory reaction was revealing, the Liberal response was more so. They seem sincere in the belief that in preventing the Liberals from being defeated, Belinda.ca has saved the country or averted a crisis. To me, this is an interesting statement about how they perceive their party and the country. -k

good grief. -k

As I said, in clear-cut cases where it's necessary to protect the child's well-being. While you're now using the phrase "mal-educate", that's a little different from what bigdude and yourself were getting at earlier in the thread. bigdude contends that religious schooling is child-abuse. And you seemed to be trying to question whether parents have the right to "indoctrinate" their children into any religious tradition. In other words, I think you have a much broader notion of what "mal-education" might constitute than many people would accept. You equated it with mind-control earlier. If it's your position that parents shouldn't be allowed to impart any belief system to their children, can you imagine the can of worms that would open? -k