CANADIEN

I t is not ancient history for those who still be bear the psychological scars of that they endured. And the clear intent of the residential school system was the destruction of Aboriginal cultures.

It is not.

What next? You need proof that 2 + 2 = 4 as well? Whether or not criminal charges are warranted when aa teenager is stupid enough to send nude pictures of herslef to her boyfriend is besides the point. We are talking about the sexual explotation of children through child pornography.

Actually, why don't YOU try to prove that the sexual exploitation children, that is tehir use in order to ehlp some perverts get off on kiddie porn, has no harmful effect. One does not need studies to know it causes harm... only use of plain 'ole common sense.

And Santa Claus brings gifts eevery year on December 25. Sooosorry for not following non-sense. My point exactly. Your non-sense does not outweight the fact. It is a known historical FACT that the purpose of the Mitchell map was to support BRITISH teritorial claims against FRENCH ones. As for the Eoyal Proclamation, it mentions many things, but it does not mention the Six Nations. It does not mention which First Nations enjoys the rights. On the basis of the way things were at the time of the Proclamation, cliams by other First Nations, such as the Mississaugas to name one, are as much if not more weight that your flight of fancy. From their, the rest of your drivel can be safely ignored. It's exactly because I read it that I know that you do not know what you are talking about.. To quote the Royal Proclamation: Could not be clearer. Imagine that... the Parliament of the COUNTRY needs the consent of the Head of State of the COUNTRY for laws to be enacted. Yes, the Head of State of Canada, as per the decision of the government of this COUNTRY to sign the Westminster Statute in 1931. Do yourself a favour, and learn to read.

So... there are imbeciles at both ends of the spectrum. Big news.

Your argument is a fallacy on twoopoints. First, it is a well documented that the treaty regime has been and continue to be blatently unfair to the Fist Nations, not the other way around. Second, the requirements of basic fairness cannot be dispensed with just because they are inconveneient for the majority. Like it or not, we are not in 1960 and we are not in Alaaabama.

We are bound by the terms until they are changed through fair and equal negotiations. Which, btw, do not include paying less for the land that what it's worth.

The example was used as the departure point for an argument that we should basically just look the other way. We can't do that.

While the First Nations are not sovereign, they ARE nations an the relationship between them and the federal government is not akin to that between the feds and provincial governments.

Let's not be confused here. The one who is trying to have it both ways is you, attempting to justify the continuation and worsening of an historical injustice while falsely arguing that the victims of that injustice are ripping unwarranted benefits out of it.

I have one word for judges and prosecutors who would send to jail people who stumble across child pornog - imbeciles. This is not what we are talking here. Nobody here is saying that the same punishment should be metered to the producers, the distributors and the owners. But the wilful owwwwning of child pornography is not harmless, and a slap on the wrist (no internet, probation) is not good enough.

Bizarre that you never mention the fact that most of the terms of the contracts were designed, interpreted and implemented so that Aboriginals would be scr*wed out of their land, their culture, and their dignity. Injstead, you make once again the ridiculous comparison with slavery.

First, Canadians are all canadians, whether or not they are born here or elsewhere. Second, in case you missed that point, Ms. Mohamud was not born in Kenya, she was visiting her mother who has moved to Kenya a few years ago. Third, there was no travel advisory regarding Kenya.

A schizophrene withiut his/her med has no control on how he perceives reality. A pedophile still has the capacity the refrain from committing harm.

Now, I do not think anybody here is accusing anyone of being a child pornographer or molestor, if that's what you mean. Considering the harm done to children by sexual abuse, and the link between that monstruous crime and the sexual depiction of children, there is nothing irrational in making sure that such activities are punished to the full extent of the law.

Making a fool of yourself with the Apartheid comparison again, I see. The distortion of democracy is the idea that the majority can shove anything they want down other people throats, and the absurdist notion that respect for mutually agreed financial commitments is somehow an extra set of rights.

Good suggestion. follow it.

The percentage of what shows what is irrelevant. The fact remains that the vast majority of owners of child pornography own at least some images of children being sexually abused.

The claim that "most child pron is 40 year old or more anyways" is so ridiculous that it would be laughable if the topic was different. Forty years ago, adults were taking pictures of children naked, or being abused, and that's what is now circulated for the most part. But somehow, less of it happens today. Yeah right. Child pornography on the internet is rising. And you can bet their users do not content themselves with seeing the same old photos again and again.

And why should I not be morally outraged when people contribute to grave harm against children? It is do who downplay it or think it should not be treated as the crime that it is who should question themselves.

They are more than dirty pictures. According to a study oconducted in 2000-2001 iin the USA and quoted on the Web site of the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children: - 40& of people posessing child pornography had also committed child abuse; - 80% had images depicting penetration - 21% had images depicting the use of violence (bondage, torture, etc.) - 39 % had images that included video and sound (40 year old videos, perhaps) - while 79% had images that didn't depict "sex", only one 1% oonly had non-sexual images

I'm not concerned about teenagers stupid enough to film their sexcapades, or nudists stupid enough to take pictures. Interesting though the way you dismiss the harm caused by child pornography withy callous statements such as "pedophiles are sick, and we do not people punish people for being sick" or "the damage, is at best, a violation of privacy". Being sick is no excuse for the commission of a crime.

The argument is that they are harmless if all they do is to get their kicks out of other people raping children. Which is rubbish, of course.