Bob

I'm not opposing that, though. I am aware that treaties play (to what degree and associated with what details I do not know...) a role in the payments to the Aboriginal community from the Canadian government. What I am saying is that these financial supports cannot be allowed to become a financial umbilical chord which works against Aboriginal interests. I'm sure we'd all agree that it's in everyone's interests, generally speaking, to see the Aboriginal community in Canada improve itself with respect to the demographic indicators I mentioned earlier (i.e. higher education and income, and lowered rates of divorce, drug abuse, and criminality). Given that moral imperative, perhaps we should examine the existing payment schemes and see how they might be modified, if necessary, towards these ends. More importantly, let's just get them off the reservations and out of the spiral of self-destruction. At the same time, they need to take responsibility for their conditions. Again, I'd refer you my own personal story as an example of how minority groups can balance integration with cultural preservation.

That's not really the case though, is it? At the very least, the current system in which Aboriginals are removed from major population centres and living on reserves isn't allowing them to find that difficult balance between maintaining (and adjusting) traditions while integrating meaningfully. In other words, keeping Natives on this pathetic financial life-support while segregated on reserves in order to give them pockets of land upon which to "maintain their culture" simply isn't working. They must find a method of integration as many other ethnic minorities have done in Canada, which balances their heritage and distinct way of life with contemporary/modern/mainstream practises. I think Saipan and Wild Bill have a point. I would hope that most people, like myself, want to see Aboriginals succeed. I would love to see them improve all of their demographic statistics: lower high-school drop rates, increase rates of university enrolment and graduation, increase average salaries, increased representation in high-profile positions in business and politics (as long as they don't advocate for a return to the "good 'ol days), reduced rates of alcoholism and other forms of drug abuse, etc.

For the sake of discussion, let's just assume that it really does cost one million dollars per year to train individual soldiers. It's quite a red herring to suggest that this money would be better spent on education, as if there is some sort of shortage of funding for education in this country. There are already extensive loan programs available in Canada, at both the federal and provincial levels. Beyond that, there are many grants and scholarship programs - primarily rewarding high academic achievement, as well as funds for athletic and artistic achievements, and also ethnic/minority/religious interests. There is simply no reason (virtually) why anyone who sincerely wants a university or college education to not be able to get one.

The system is rigged whether or not Canada secures the seat. Canada would have had an opportunity to advance a positive agenda within the system, but alas, Canada was denied based on anti-Israel politicization. Strangely, it ve seems that you are rejecting the obvious: that the anti-Israel crowd came together to oppose Canada's bid in a move to punish Canada for Harper's strong support for Israel. Certainly Canada has always supported Israel's right to exist, but this position has been expressed with mixed signals. Without going into specifics, one cannot genuinely support Israel's right to exist (as the Jewish state) in one breathe while undermining its right to self-defence in the next breathe. Canada has not always been a solid supporter of Israel, and has occassionally skirted the untenable position of equating the morality of both sides, with absurd statements that implied equal culpability for the current situation on both sides. Your "war crime" comment isn't worth addressing.

The opposition to the concept of the sex-offender registry coming from guyser and GostHacked is based on the perspective that most, or even many, sex-offences against children are performed by family or others with close access to the child. So, because there the proposition doesn't help in all cases it's not worth doing? That's like being opposed to the R.I.D.E. program because you can't check ever car on every highway. The proposition for publicly-accessible sex-offender registry is a low-cost option to help parents do their job. You both are making nonsense statements about parents not doing their jobs, while at the same time opposing a tool that would improve parents' abilities to do their job: to protect their children. Being cognizant of the whereabouts of sex-offenders is just another tools parents can use. If you want to concurrently increase the enforcement of existing policies by improving monitoring of known sex-offender, I'm all for that. We don't necessarily have to choose between increasing existing enforcement/monitoring/follow-up and producing a public sex-offender registry. Lastly, I think a public sex-offender registry would most certainly serve a strong deterrent. I am really not concerned about how privacy issues factor into this issue when dealing with the most reprehensible criminals. As far as the logistics of who would be on, for how long, for what crimes, and possible removal from the list... who knows? There are obviously several worthwhile approaches to this endeavour. guyser- Don't think for a second that anyone doesn't realize that you slandered all Catholics without explicitly saying so. You don't need to say "I'm prejudiced against Catholics" to reveal your bigotry.

It was worth going for a seat in order to utilize our influence in a possibly positive way. Either way, Keepitsimple has already made it clear that it is a rigged system, and the reason for the rejection of Canada's bid was simply the anti-Israel Arab and Muslim countries coming together to punish Canada because of Harper's strong support for Israel's basic rights: to exist as the Jewish homeland and to defend itself from harm. The rest of your post is just typical moral relativism. You make it think that you are building an image of yourself as "fair and balanced" and being opposed to "both sides", but all it does it either demonstrate your ignorance or deceit. Any honest or moral examination of the Israel-Arab conflict instantly reveals that much more blame lies with one side. One side lives and breathes values that resonate with Canadians, the other lives and breathes values that are contrary to those of Canada. I don't want to get into a whole derailment about Israel, but Canada's support of Israel's fundamentals purpose and basic rights is the moral, and unfortunately unpopular, position. Canada holds the moral highground while it loses the seat. At the end of the day, the seat is pretty insignificant, anyways. Veto power remains with the "big five".

Would you oppose the development of a sex-offender registry for the protection of children? Just because we don't have it at the moment is certainly not an argument against it. What this thread is about, as far as I'm concerned, is whether or not it's worthwhile to develop a public registry of sex-offenders so that we may know where these persons live, and so that we may be more diligent in protecting children from these dangerous convicted criminals.

Shwa - I am not recommending that Aboriginals necessarily be placed in public schools. What I am recommending is that they focus on providing their children and young adults with a solid conventional education while finding creative ways to also provide an educational system to ensure the perseverance and continued development of their cultures. As an example, I shared a personal anecdote about how some Jewish communities in Canada try to address this challenge. Some establish private Jewish schools (both elementary and secondary) which focus on conventional education (mathematics, sciences, languages, etc) while also providing time for Jewish history and religious studies. We didn't have Christian holidays as our days off (except where legally required, I think), we had Jewish holidays off. We made matzos on Pesah (Passover) and lit candles for Hannukah. See what I mean? Alternatively, Aboriginals can and perhaps in many instances should enrol their children into standard public schools, where we have a considerable mix of cultures. Outside of regular educational hours, of course, Aboriginals families would need to find ways to educate their children and young ones on their cultures. Night-school classes, weekend-classes, summer camps (I also went to a Jewish summer camp) and many other options are available as possible solutions towards addressing the challenge of preserving culture. The Jewish people have done it around the world for thousands of years, in many countries, against the most difficult conditions, and it is certainly not without its challenges. Other people can do it, also.

I agree with the posts above, as I'm not convinced that little-to-no campaigning in smaller towns and cities is exactly the same as not giving a damn about rural Canada. I think it sends a message, though, perhaps inadvertently. The most important component to an accurate evaluation of how much one party cares about rural issues would be a more in-depth examination of what they've done (or not done) for rural Canada. Check the left's record when in power and out of power, at both the federal and provincial levels.

This thread has already addressed those problems, though. The overall consensus in this thread among supporters of a Canadian registry for sex-offenders is to have special provisions which provide a common-sense distinction between certain "criminals" and the real criminals. Of course we do not want to plant a "sex-offender" label on a "criminal" who engaged in sexual activity with a 16-year-old when she was 17-years-old alongside a middle-aged man who molested his pre-teen niece. This is yet another example of leftists (in this case nicky10013) refusing to allow themselves to make very important distinctions in a transparent attempt to completely invalidate a valuable proposition. They want to misrepresent our positions and tell us that we are trying to condemn inappropriate teenage sexual activity in the same manner as we condemn dangerous child predators. That's not what we said and that's not what we want. If you can't understand these things, then perhaps you shouldn't participate in a discussion which requires the ability to differentiate between somewhat arbitrary and subjective concepts. More broadly, your life will suffer if you consistently need to have nuances spoonfed to you.

Although very brief and general, I fully agree with the article posted in the OP. A dis from today's UN is, generally speaking, a badge of honour. I also really like this phrase from Keepitsimple, "Let's face it, Canada's exclusion says more about the UN than it does about Canada." Bingo. The cynic in me is still occasionally sceptical of Harper's sincerity with respect to his support for Israel, but I believe him more often than not. Supporting Israel, generally speaking, is the moral position to take with respect to the Israel-Arab conflict. Unfortunately, it is also almost always the most politically precarious position given the widespread ignorance of much of the public on this issue and the frighteningly common knee-jerk sympathies from leftists to the Arab and Muslim narrative.

I'm not sure if I should thank anyone for "defending" me against what seem to be inside-joke and infantile insults from charter.rights, but should I? I mean, I am who I am and I am not anyone else (to the best of my knowledge). I will report charter.rights' childish and immature insults and trolling to the administration of this website.

Your whole post boils down to prejudiced generalizations against Sicilians, or Catholics, or both. I made a clear post about a visit I made to a restaurant owned by apparently religious Sicilian Catholics. They took part in the sex-offender registry program by posting information about a released convicted sex-offender in the lobby/foyer of their restaurant. I stated my support for people like that who go out of their way to do their part towards protecting children, which certainly only took a few moments of their time. You, in a disturbing revelation of your own prejudice and bigotry, then went off on a tangent by alleging that these people are complicit in child predation because of their religious affiliation. The irony being, of course, that I'm quite certain someone like yourself (correct me if I'm wrong) would instantly lash out at someone making a similarly prejudicial and generalized statements about Muslims being terrorists-by-association simply because of their religion. It's sad that you don't even realize you indicted all Catholics (and perhaps by extension other Christians) with your own bigoted statements. You are unable to separate between the Catholic Church and smalltown American Catholic business-owners, as the praise I shared was specifically at the business-owners and other people like themselves to do small things to enhance the safety of their communities. While people like that volunteer their time with organizations like a neighbourhood watch, you snicker and sneer at them while accusing them of being too zealous because they asked a group of teenager a few questions.

Why do people like yourself always have such difficulty making distinctions that can't exactly be quantified? Do you not see how knowledge of a convicted child predator's whereabouts are particularly more important towards the protection of children than the whereabouts of thieves, drunk drivers, and white-collar criminals? Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Thieves, drunk drivers, and white-collar criminals don't directly prey on the least vulnerable among us, and violate them in reprehensible ways. This is why their whereabouts are more important towards public safety than thieves, drunk drivers, and white-collar criminals. The knowledge of where a thief, drunk driver, or white-collar criminal lives isn't a particularly essential piece of information towards preventing him (or sometimes her) from reoffending. Moreover, and this should be obvious to anyone with sense and a heart, child predators are particularly reprehensible when compared to other types of criminals. Why is anything with some element of subjectivity and arbitrariness so incomprehensible to leftists like yourself? Everything subjective immediately becomes a dramatic exaggeration of the "slippery slope" argument from people like you, with leftists like you leading the way and running for the hills. Sometimes I get the impression that you're smarter than your arguments would lead us to believe, and that you simply like to argue with people you dislike, all the while advancing vapid arguments. Perhaps you just like to play devil's advocate even when supporting untenable positions and perspectives. Who knows?

I have no idea who or what you are talking about. I seems to me that it is some infantile inside joke, as you called me "Gary" in another thread. Many of your posts clearly violate the forum rules and qualify as blatant trolling and/or flamebaiting. Other posts of yours are simply devoid of content and contribute nothing to the discussion(s). Do you really think it'd be difficult for me to clearly demonstrate this to the forum's administration/moderation team? You need to grow up.

NO TROLLING/FLAMING Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people. If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all. Some messages are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value. An example would be a person who persistently creates conflict without contributing anything useful. In newsgroup circles, such a person is known as a "troll". We define "trolling" as a message that serves no constructive purpose and is likely to cause offence or arguments. We define "annoying" as any message that results in a complaint from a registered user -- we will then decide whether to take action.

I'm with Mr. Canada and others that support a public sex offender registry. I was driving back to Ottawa from NYC this past June with my sister and we stopped in some smalltown a couple of hundred kilometres from the border to get a bite to eat. The GPS guided us to some local Italian restaurant. When we walk in, in the foyer, we saw a medium-sized print-out of some pervert that had recently been released in the area, with his full name, photograph, and neighbourhood (perhaps even address?). Obviously this had something to do with one of the American sex-offender registry laws (Megan's Law, right?). Right above it I saw a massive painting of Jesus Christ and other religious Catholic paraphernalia. I thought to myself, and I mean this sincerely, God-bless these people. We need more people like that in the world who are vigilant about protecting others and don't place the privacy concerns of the most reprehensible criminals (those who prey on children) above the need for public security and safety, and the need to protect children. As far as I'm concerned, if you violate a child in such a manner you are an extremely dangerous person who deserves to have his (and rarely her) privacy reasonably compromised for the protection of others from your despicable compulsions and urges. We need more Sicilians like that in this world, if you ask me. And the pasta and pizza we pretty good, albeit overpriced.

I agree, it's not inherently anti-Semitic, and in my heart of hearts I don't think Rick Sanchez is an anti-Semite. At the same time, it's no secret that the Jewish community is well-represented with respect to positive social barometers. Rick Sanchez more than likely is familiar with this, as after all, he works in media (where Jews make up a larger portion of the workforce than our total proportion of the population) and lived and worked in Miami (a major hub of Jewish life in America) for many years. If we're being completely honest, Jews, when compared to broader population, tend to do well with respect to education and income. We also have lower rates of negative social measurements such as dropping out of high-school, drug abuse, and criminal behaviour. Sometimes I think we're too sensitive about recognizing and openly stating this, perhaps for fear of feeding some well-known anti-Semitic stereotypes which you mentioned above. I feel that if managed properly, though, these truths and statistics about us can be leveraged in a positive way and be something that we can be proud of outside of the dinner table, in order to build more bridges between us and everyone else. Shouldn't multicultural and diverse countries like the USA and Canada admire and appreciate Jewish integration? You'd think so... With respect to The Daily Show, I find it intellectually and increasingly left-wing and preachy as time goes on. Although I was exaggerating by stating it caters to teenagers, I don't think The Daily Show is particularly appealing to those who are well-versed in politics. I'm really not a big fan of Jon Stewart or his opinions, either (isn't that obvious?). Or should I say Jonathan Leibowitz.

Here he is defending his statements on CNN with Wolf Blitzer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI1S3DweZ_Q&feature=player_embedded

You seem to be advancing the false notion that the Natives lived in harmony and balance with nature. They were (and I am not faulting them for this) decimating wildlife and driving some species towards extinction. Don't think for a second that they were the historical parallels of the blue creatures in the movie "Avatar". If I recall correctly, in GGaS, Jared Diamond mentions these realities. If you haven't already read the book, I'd highly recommend it. And if anything, Jared Diamond is somewhat biased in favour of what some of you would describe as "indigenous populations".

Why are you unable to differentiate between mainstream Canadian public schools (I went to a private Jewish elementary school) and the special schools that were designed for Natives? They're not one-in-the-same. The distinction is crucial, and I'm not sure why you're blurring it. That's exactly what I'm saying. Why don't we encourage Aboriginals to do the same as other minorities in Canada, where they integrate while making reasonable efforts towards the preservation their culture. Certainly some things have to go, such as the nomadic lifestyle. Don't you agree that Natives can enjoy a modernized contemporary version of their cultures that are compatible with contemporary Canada, just as many other cultures are currently doing? Nobody said it's easy, but it's the ideal balance between maintaining old ways, traditions, cultures, faiths, and heritages while integrating successfully and being a valuable part of the Canadian social fabric. Clearly current and past policies were flawed, as well as the choices and selections of the these Natives and their leadership. To accept a somewhat segregationist policy where they are far removed from the heart of Canadian society, on remote reservations, with sub-par education and opportunities, is simply wrong. Both Canada and the Aboriginals should've moved towards a policy of REAL integration. Is what I'm saying that hard to understand? I am not supporting to policies of old, nor am I advocating for further or deepened segregation. Integration is the way, as many other cultures have done it and certainly Aboriginals can, too.

Not really. Either way, and somewhat ironically, this is yet another example of you implying total equivalencies based on some commonalities. So, just as Roma were persecuted by the Nazis and collaborators, it wasn't the same degree of intensity as the persecution that was directed to my people. So, although you're stating you have a connection to the Holocaust, it's not the same as my connection to it. Of course, in your view, we can't discuss such things as the degree of our connectedness to the Holocaust isn't quantifiable. Are you now beginning to see the silliness of your earlier statements? I'm seriously not trying to be rude or disparaging, I'm just trying to be as clear as possible. Having something(s) in common isn't the same as total equivalence.

Look folks, it's nice speaking with you all. I'll try to be back later. Bye for now. CANADIEN - I will address you valid point about homes existing for these subculture nations living within Canada later. I recognize that for many of these Aboriginal nations the perseverance of their cultures is an existential issue, as their numbers are dwindling and perhaps many of them are assimilating. Still, these responsibilities lie in the hands of the members of the culture. Perhaps Canada can give some monetary support, but the preservation of culture primarily rests on the shoulders of the culture itself. As a Jewish Canadian living in Israel, the need for a homeland for a nation strongly resonates with me. Still, it is a difficult proposition for Canada to carve out pieces to be given as autonomous states within Canada. I think there are superior solutions along the lines of integration I was talking about, earlier. Again, bye for now.

They can attend public schools or establish private schools (like many other minorities do) which adhere to basic fundamentals (math, science, English, etc) while also teaching them about things that are important and unique to them (their own language<s>, religion/faith, personal history, etc). If they go to public schools, they can have cultural development outside of their schools such as evening and weekend classes and workshops. Many cultures already do this, from my Christian friends telling me about Sunday school to learn about their bible, or my Muslim friends who studied Arabic at home with their families or in special classes, or my Indian friends who rent Bollywood movies and buy garam masala seasoning at local East-Asian stores. Please tell me you understand this, now, as I feel like I've repeated these ideas many times already. How is this not an acceptable and ideal solution? It balances cultural needs to preservation and development while also providing the skills and education necessary to find meaningful employment in contemporary Canada. Whether or not they are immigrants isn't really relevant to me.

Great book, and decent movie. Charter.rights - I will have an Israeli passport inside of a year. I am a citizen of Israel, though.