CANADIEN

Aboriginal leadership is indeed needed to bring communities together to develop and implement solutions. That being said, First nations are exactly that, NationS, with an emphasis on the plural. Any "solution" that starts from the premise they should stop thinking of themselves as invididual entities is even more doomed to failure than piecemeal approaches.

Interesting, isn't it? It took only a few postings to see the two ill-informed bigoted sides of the coins. Like it or not, this is 2009. which means that the descendants of the immigrants from Europe or elsewhere in the World are not going anywhere. This is our land too, and why justice and simple common sense demands respect for the historical rights of the descendants of the first inhabitants, the notion that non-Aboriginal Canadians should consider themselves as ppertual renters or jst leve is wrong-headed and, quite frankly, racist. Even more so, however, is the idea that Aboriginals should just pack and leave. Last time I checked, this was their homeland. Funny though, that some of the people who advocate this non-sense are also the ones who cry out "this is the country our ancestors built" when whining about recent (non-white/non-Christian) immigrants. Now, sure there are those who will say "they should just pay the same taxes as the rest of us and be treated the same way as the rest of us". Fine, and I agree... as long as they are actually treated like everyone else. First step should be to bring legitimate land ownership claims to a fair and rapid conclusion - "the rest of us" usually do not have to negociate for decades for onwership of our property to be acknowledged. Second step would be to give Aboriginal communities the tools to develop their own solutions to their problems - too often, "we" claim they should be on their own, then we treat them as if they were not able to do it.

that's an insult to 4th graders everywhere. Good question. Apart from hinting at closing the immigration door, i still have to read how Argus proposes we deal with the issue. But then, I have a growing suspicion that the REAL problem for Argus is that they're not white enough, period.

Thank you for illuminating us, wise one. I would have never guessed in a million years that failure to be a bigot who would ban from this country anyone not christian/white enough and who laments the good ole days when his school and his neighborough were all white is a sign of self-hatred.

You're not nitpicking, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Mo man should rape any woman, period (or any man, and no woman should rape anyone). If your posting is a reflection of a belief that I am attempting to highlight hatred of other groups as a factor in some rapes, you are knocking at the wrong door (and of course, if I misread you, my apologies).

You are right.

I could argue it's both, plus logical thinking.

What can I say? There is not much to add or comment on your postings besides the fact thatyou are basiccally right.

Now, now, in defense of benny, I don't believe he thinks enough about what he posts for his postings to qualify as racist.

I have seen the following list of factors influencing crime rates, in Uniform Crime peorting reports of various US states. Crime reporting practices of the citizenry. Public attitudes toward law enforcement and crime. The size, density and demographic composition of a jurisdiction's population. Economic status of the population and area unemployment rates. Population stability including the number of commuters, transients, and seasonal population variations. Climate. [my note; ???] Cultural conditions, such as educational, recreational, and religious characteristics. Community family values. Law enforcement employment standards and relative strength. Policies of the prosecuting officials and the courts. The administrative and investigative efficiency of the local law enforcement agency, including the degree of adherence to crime reporting standards. I would assume that they count things such as perceptions of other segments of the population as a cultural factor, and I'll keep it at that. Rape is a particular crime in that, along with domestic abuse, power is often the motivation. Hatred (of a gender in general, or a person in particular) is also, imho, a factor in more case than with let's say, robbery. I believe it is not illogical to assume that in some cases rapes can be motivated by hatred towards certain racial, ethnic or cultural groups. There is no data to corroborate this, though.

I will stand (slightly) corrected. The actual claim was that Blacks have a predilection for violence. If we look at the United States, data from sources such as Uniform Crime Reporting and stats on prison population indicates that percentage wise a higher proportion of Blacks commit crimes copared to other groups. Those numbers, however, do not support the claim of a predilection for violence. The majority of Blacks do not commit crimes.

The fatal flaw is the conclusion that Blacks, as a group, have a predilection for rape, specifically raping white women. Predilection means preference. Even the worst statistics on the issue of rape do not support that conclusion and, quite frankly, it does not make sense.

In defense of whowhere, I do not think he is aisting people's time one bit. I for one finds him to be a riot.

I have never been there, so I will take your word that it does not happen.. That being said, if the law is broken, then the law should be enforced.

Not that simple. If it's illegal, then it should not take place. Parade or no parade.

Let me rephrase that. Acts of genital nudity.

It's already established that gay pride parade do not promote homosexuality. Acts of nudity in public should land those who commit them in jail.. Period. that being said. I would not call the blatent near naked display of heterosexual flesh in Toronto's entertainment district on week-ends "normal behaviour" either.

I have to agree with MB here. Sounds to me like ignorance and prejudice-mongering.

It is not. Your definition is wrong. The only reason why it would be silly is because some would hijack it to turn it into a hate-fest.

If the Government had not intervened in 2002, tha strike would have lasted much longer than this one. Once Lastman insulted common sense as well the strikers by calling them "anti-Catholic" for starting a strike a few weeks before the Pope's visit, the possibility of a negotiated settlement was pretty remote to say the least.

If by promoting, you mean making people aware it exist, yes. But I would argue that's a bit large of a description of the term. If by that, you mean that they are encouraging people to "become" homosexual, this is complete non-sense. One person does not become homosexual just because they are in contact (no pun intended) with homosexuals. It would be interested to see a definition of the term "gay-monger".

Still does not change the fact that your statement about homosexuality being promoted is a fallacy.

Who said it was? Certainly not me. Same here, and you know I am not arguing otherwise. Trying to insult me? You know very well that what I say we should look at the values of the individual would be immigrants. Strike one. I made it clear that we should have better and more resources so that we get the immigrants we need. Strike two. Less we forget. High standards cannot be achieved without bigotry. Strike three.

Many dispositions of Bill 101 violates basic freedoms.