CANADIEN

Yhe issue is not whether Omar Khadr is a terrorist. It is whether or not information coerced out of him is credible. IInformation coerced out of anybody is not credible.

delete

Rumblings that didn't amount to any credible evidence of wrongdoings. Well said. What was he thinking, believeing that having crossed the US border dozens of times on business without a problem. being a Canadian citizen, and above all having done nothing wrong would protect him. Of course, he was falsely accused on the basis of poor intelligence work, shipped to a foreign country, tortured, abandoned by the government of his country, then smeared after he freed, so HE needs to smarten up. I wonder if you'd say the same if his name was Smith.

Omar Khadr was 15 when he was being interrogated in Afghanistan, in 2002, and allegedly claimed to have seen Maher Arar. That claim was made when he was 15, and that's what is relevant when debating what level of credibility such a statement has, not how old he is now. So we have a 15 year old, submitted to harsh methods of interrogation, possibly even some level of torture. Most teenagers and most adults under those conditions will admit to almost anything. For this reason, most legitimate courts will not admit testimonies obtained under coercion. I don't understand this is so hard to grasp. As for Maher Arar. A public inquiry concluded there was no credible evidence he was a terrorist. Public Security Minister Stockwell Day said he didn't see any credible evidence in the file compiled by the U.S. authorities on Arar. No credible evidence. I don't understand why it so hard to admit.

Let me check here... A prosecution witness in a kangaroo court, who cannot be identified. Who testifies on the interrogation of a 15 year old done in conditions that would lead to the testimony being thrown out of any regular court of law. Add to that the fact that some of the interrogators and guards in the Bagram prison, where Khadr was interrogated, were later charged in the death of another prisoner. Khadr should spend a lenghty period of time in jail... after a legitimate trial, not what is taking place in Guantanamo. That being said, what he was subjected to in Bagram is coercion at best, torture at worst; most everebody under such conditions would say about anything they think would please the captors. If the Khadr "testimony" constitute a reliable proof that Maher Arar is a dangerous individual, how is it that Stockwell Day saw the secret file maintained by the US authorities then said was nothing in there justifying Arar being banned from the US? How come the US Government didn't reveal the "truth" to the O'Connor Commission? It will take more than a frightened 15-year old saying "I know him" when shown a photograph for me to believe in the guilt of a man who was cleard by a public inquiry.

The ONLY advantage of electronic voting (and even that could be solbed through other means) would be to allow people who are away from their riding for an exetended period of time or who are physically unable to go to a pollinh station the possibility to vote. As for those who won't make the effort to walk (or drive) a few blocks and take 30 to 45 minutes top to vote, they should be watching international news once an while. They'll see people line up for hours to vote, they'll see people willing to risk physical assault and death to vote. That's how important voting is to people who know what it is to live without the right to vote freely. If after that they still can endure the gross inconvenience of actually going to vote, then as a society we can live without their vote.

Done one thing better, looked at the Code of Canon Law Are to be excommunicated: - the schimatics, apostates or heretics - those who physically assault the Pope - adulturous priests - those who toss or hide for sacrilegeous purpose consacrated wine and bread - bishops who ordain other bishops with proper authorisation - priests who violate the secret of confession - those who perform a successful abortion Pretty limited list. Now you are welcome to argue that support for a right to abortion or gay marriage is a form of heresy, but then would be stement such as "the Jews killed Jesus" (an opinion you have expressed), since the Second Vatican Council formally rejectec the idea of the Jewish people being collectively responsible for it. BTW, I believe that life becomes at conception and that a true marriage is between a man and a woman. Don't let the act that I am not homophobic fool you on that account.

I have seen some too. Even, a few years back, from the Cathollic Church. They pay for the space, they get the space.

For once, you got spmething right.

Too bad it's full of c*ap.

Some of my opinions are to the right of centre, some to the left. Must mean both Steven Harper and Sid Ryan are my leaders, right? What a load of non-sense. I KNOW Sid Ryan did not speak for me when he called for a boycott of Israel, because I did not share his view. No if, no but, no and. He does NOT speak for me, period. And why would I defend someone who I know is wrong? By pointing at anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish statements YOU have made? Don't blame me if the truth hurts.

And something tells me the Archbishop's office doesn't know it either.

Me, an atheist? Mind if I tell that one to my parish priest? He'll get a laugh. The same way I laugh when you claim to have the power to have pedophile priests excommunicated.

So, it is not true that some people in position of authoruty in the Church protected priests who had commited pedophile crimes? Too bad you didn't warn the Pope before he admitted those things had happened. I was in the crowd when he did in Toronto in 2002.

Sid Ryan is not one of my leader in any way, shape or form, especially when he makes a fool of himself. As for "attacking your character", I am merely pointing out that you had said more, and worse, about Jews that Sid Ryan.

N ot too long ago, you were accusing Israel of being an Apartheid state, and calling supporters of israel "socialists". Not too long ago, you said that you did not care If Jews and Muslims killed each others, and that anyway it would lead to more conversion. Not too long ago, you were repeating that innacurate and grossly anti-semitic statement "The Jews killed Jesus". So excuse me if I find it laughable when you denounce that who, too use your own words, "hold contempt for the Jewish community".

Don't know the difference between socialist and communist, I see.

So speaks the man who claims that killing in the name of God is OK.

The only thing common to English and the language you write in is the letters used. Same old Leafless. Everytime you're confronted with your own contradictions, it's the others who cannot read. And so is the right of all Canadians to decide for themselves what Canadian language they'll use in dealing with the federal government. Yet, you advocate denying the rights of people belonging to minority Canadian cultural and linguistic groups. Ever read this? The only person here claiming the issue is about equality (or lack thereof) between culture is you. It is not, it is about the equal rights of all Canadians, something you wrongly assume to exist when people are made to think the same way, adopt the same cultural practices and speak the same language. You claim that equality of rights between Canadians discriminates against you? Prove it. You claim that the Charter is a discriminatory document, prove it by showing the exact words in it that you believe result in discrimination against you.

I gave read it, often, and that's why I know that there is nothing in that that discriminates against anybody. But then, I read the French and English version, that one in Leafless-ish probably says something different. Respect the rights of Canadians.

Hear hear

The only one accusing anyone else of any crime is you... until now. I believe this sentence of yours to be a crime against logic and the English language. So, my culture is Canadian (YOU admitted it), but my right as a Canadian to choose it is an "imposed" right. You are getting tiresome. Why don't you rant against other "dictated" rights, for a change? You know, for example, women's right to vote, or freedom of religion. If you were in the US, I'd suggest to rant against the "imposed" rights of Blacks to sit at the front of the bus. Sounds a lot more accurate to me.

Nobody is denying that English is the language of a majority of Canadians. But then, most of us do not engage in delusions, unlike you. The so-called discrimination is a figment of your imagination. What is not a figment of anyone's imagination is the fact that there have been at various points during out histories government policies aimed at assiimilating French-speaking Canadians and Aboriginal Canadians.

Must be the nightI just spent in a house without power. For the first time, I believe you wrote something that made sense. But then I read the rest of your rant, and I realise that you're back to your old self, not getting as usual, as demonstrate by... Actually, they ARE free-flowing. Canadians are free to identify to them, or not. I know you miss the good old day when Aborigianl schoolkids were sent to resdiential schools and French was banned from the public realm, but we are in 2009, not in 50000000 BC. You will of course scream "subsidies"... and ignore that such subsidies are also given to English-speaking cultural organizations. And you will probably come again with some grandiose non-sense, like arguing that I should blame myself if the government tried to assimilate my ancestors, since they should have just assimilated themselves. News to you, as YOU acknowledged, I don't need to assimilate into any culture other than my own to have a Canadian culture.

who gained power through democratic elections. If you are talking about Quebec provincial laws, Trudeau had nothing to do with it, and you should know that. Further, there is no federal law, and no provincial law outside Quebec, that discriminates against English-speaking Canadians, and you should know that. When rights are acknowledged, there are always bigoted or just plain ignorant people who feel those rights are "imposed". What complete nonsense. Yet, the English-Canadian cultures in Canada are free-flowing. Guyser is not the only one who notice the contradiction here. Yet, most immigrants to Quebec are from non-White culture. As usual, you don't get it. Same old Leafless... still not getting the fact that this country has two national languages. Don't they have the right to decide what linguistic skills their workforce should posess?