CANADIEN

There have been legal challenges to the rape shield laws in canada and the US in this millenium. Some attitudes are still there.

Oh really?

You must have had something to hide.

Obviously, you lack the capacity to grasp the fact the Obama DOES hold a certified copy of his birth record., and that he has made it publicly available.

Trolling like yours is merely annoying, you know?

Something intelligent to contribute?

Good thing. Does not change the fact that there are still archaic notions about women circulating in our societies.

And that's relevant how?

Noboby had ever told him women deserved it, so nobody thinks that.

What are you hiding?

Nice try. You believe that is an American, but you don't trust the document proving it and claim that he has something to hide. Whatever.

The issue is not what you have heard or not heard. It is not the reaction that most people would have if someone said it to their face. It is not even your idiotic assumption that I claim to read mind. It is about the fact that there are people in Western societies who holds such opinion. 26% of Britons think that's a woman is at least partly responsible if she wears certain clothings, 20% if she has multiple sexual partners, according to poll conducted in 2005.

I do not think that, and if you believe I have said something of the kind, you need to learn how to read.

What it was called 10, 20 or 50 years ago is totally irrelevant. So is what it is called elsewhere it would still have been a certified copy of the records as kept by the government - with no more and no LESS legal value than the one issued to Obama in 2008. You still have the certified copy of the birth registration that was issued to your parents shortly after your birth (called a certificate here)? So do I. And many people. But many do not have it. I know somebody who used to work with the Registrar General of Ontario, dealing with sending back requests for birth certificates that were not filled properly. Hundreds a month, so you can imagine the total number. More people than not, for a number of reasons, do not have the document that their parents received. Does that mean that they have something to hide, or is it only when it's Barack Obama? Besides, we both know that the morons would still not be satisfied. He has produced a fully legal proof that the State of hawaii has registered his birth in that State. That's good enough for the state of Hawaii, that's good enough for me, that should be good enough for anyone with a brain. What is strange is that a legal document issued by the State of Hawaii is not good enough.

How many time do you need to be told that the "certification of live birth" (that's the name of the document now issued by the State of Hawaii when asked for a copy of the birth certificate they have on file) is the ONLY document that the State of Hawaii will issue to someone requesting a certified proof of hisher birth having been registered, and that it is consered as the SAME as the original certificate held by the State as far as probative value goes/ Now, I' give you the benefit of the doubt. You may be talking about the birth certification (or certificate, if you want to use a term different than the one used in State laws) given by the State or the hospital to Obama's parents shortly after his birth. If that's the case, do you still have yours? Do your wife, your brothers, your parents still have theirs? For that matter, do you or they still hold certfied copies issued ten, fifteen years ago? Many people do not, so I presume that any certified copies now issued by the state of Hawaii is suspect, right?

I do not claim to be able to read human mind. No need to be able to do that to come to the conclusion that, when a sizeable proportion of society believes a crime is justified, it's likely to include those who commit it.

What Mr. Canada is implying is not that. He is implying that hatred is necessarily the motive for any violent crime committed by a Black person against a White person. As for his possible link to racist groups. Never thoguth of it... But then, he couldn't care less if Muslims and Jews killed each other, he does not mind honour killings as long as they do not happen here, and he has quoted Holocaust denier and claimed they had a point a few times in the past.

Wonderful logic. If I say that selling emonade without a license is not acrime, then i must be saying it is a crime. Illegal acts are not by defination criminal acts. A cyclist who burns a right light has violated the law (and he's an idiot), but there is nothing in the Criminal Code about it. Nope, i am calling a crime a crime, and organizations that commit crimes as a core activity criminal organizations. Where did I hear it? Clubs actually (way back when, mind you). And even a family reunion once. But once does not need to actually hear it to know some people hold that thought. But if you still think nobody in this society, rapists or otherwise, think that, don't read the following:

Selling lemonade withtout a license is covered by legislation, but not the Criminal Code. It was indeed created for the specific purpose of committing crimes. Good for you. Of course everyone who holds that kind of opinion go public. But how do you think rapists justify their crimes to themselves? "she was asking for it". Until a few years back, it was permissible for defence lawyers to question rape victims about their sexual life; some defense lawyers were all too willing to use it to smear the victim. That's sufficent indication there are people who still think that way.

It WAS a criminal organization. A group of people who form together to commit crimes is criminal in nature, and no less bbecause the purpose is not monetary profit. By your definition then, al-Quaeda is not a criminal organization? To me it is.

What you described is an insane way of thinking. That a significant proportion of people in a given society does not change this. Which makes the quick rush to qualify spousal violence in Western society as insane without looking at societal attitudes about women all the more troubling (not, of course, to claim that you or anybody who do that dismiss the seriousness of spousal abuse). Saying "he was on the edge of insanity" or "just drunk" is just too easy. In almost every case, there is a pattern, of using violence as a way of control. The bursts of violence does not hide how cold and profoundly inhumane the whole thing is. And it is fed by notions on the place, the role and the rights of women that are more present in our society than one would admit... Search around enough on a Sunday, and you will find preachers who tell wives the Bible order them to obey their husbands. Social Conservative groups advocate policies based on the notion that the place of a woman is it home. More boys that one would think grow up believing women are objects, a notion too often reinforced in publicity. Of course, I would never claim that this amount to societal endorsement of violence against women. But how often do we still here people saying of a rape victim "she must done something wrong"? .

So sorry... The cross-burning and lynching and bombings and murders must have been a product of North America's collective imagination.

You're right. All I have, after all, is what you say about Muslims, immigrants in general, the poor, gays and lesbians. Submit that one to YUK! YUK! They'll find you a job very quickly.

Correction, that makes me squirm with laughter. There was. Islam is not a secret criminal organization whose MEMBERS are pledged to commit acts of violence to advance their objectives. The KKK is.

Michael hardner (for one) must have written on a completely different Web site. Some have not grown out of it, but I digress. In fact, English and Scottish immigrants were usually treated a lot better than other groups. Today, there are some who would give a free press to immigrants of European backgrounds. Not different. BTW, nice try using a concept you dislike (multiculturalism). You tried that one before, and it still falls flat on its face. To a Canadian-born in the mid-19th, irish immigrants were a bunch of savages. To a Canadian-born in the 1950's, Italian immigrants were backwards. The attitude was the same as the one you have towards Muslims today. Yet, most immigrant groups retained elements of their cultures. Today's communications make integration a more complex problem, that's for sure. But do you actually believe for one second Joe McCaffey in 1870's or Guiseppe Cafra in 1956 would have been less enclined to seek a wife in the old country than Youssuf Khalifa in 2008 if they have had the Internet and airplanes? We'll pass on the culturally biased education, and the taunting that immigrant children had to endure. A dual school system (English and french) would be nice. But we cannot say on one hand "private schools for the rich are find, and the Roman Catholic system in Ontario is kind of OK, but Muslims and Jews and Sikhs cannot have their own private school". Either you get all the kids together, or you don't. One thing that hasn't changed is that some people will find excuses for prejudice.