Melanie_

We are all making assumptions, you included. Perhaps a fair trial would have eliminated all the assumptions, and we could have a clearer understanding of who and what he truly was. That ship has sailed, so everyone has their own interpretation of the "facts".

Yes, I do play the 10 year old angle. He had no choice in where he was, and it wasn't like he could just pick up and leave if he disagreed. And yes, he may not have disagreed... kids are easily manipulated to support the views of those around them. This is why we have different laws for minors, up to the age of 18. And this is why the Supreme Court said we should have intervened.

Hal, do you know what you do when you're 10 years old and your dad says you're moving to Afghanistan? You move to Afghanistan. He didn't choose to go there.

Hal, I'm just trying to understand the law Army Guy referred to. Even if it's the law, I'm pretty sure most people in the scenario I described would try to defend themselves.

So, if a civilian is in a private home that is attacked by a foreign army intending to kill everyone in it, but said civilian is not in a uniform or wearing an armband or carrying arms openly in public, they cannot take part in hostilities and have no right to defend themselves?

Thanks, I'll look for that book. I understand what you're saying, but I don't think the issue is simply about dwelling on the past and looking for someone to blame. The repercussions of colonization are real, and will take time to recover from. And the system was set up to promote dependency, so there needs to be a systemic change at the national level, as well as community by community.

How do you think the present day reserve system got so screwed up? Could it be that for 150 years children were taken away and placed in abusive situations where they had no chance to develop normal family relationships? Also think about what was happening on those reserves after the children were taken away. Entire communities without children, and parents powerless to protect their kids. Those parents themselves had gone through the same schools, so they knew exactly what kind of treatment their children were getting and they could do nothing to prevent it. School dropouts? Yes, there is a widespread mistrust of schools and authority, for good reason. Widespread domestic abuse? Yes, when people are raised in institutions without family relationships and then expected to create families as adults, there is going to be a lot of dysfunction. Alcoholism and drug addiction? Yes, when you've experienced long term abuse as a child and have no coping mechanisms, or when you've had to knowingly allow your child to experience that kind of abuse, addiction is a common outcome. No jobs on reserves? Yes, when reserves are set up on some of the most inhospitable land, there tends to be little economic development. General despair and suicide? See all the points above. And of course, people will say that this is in the past, they should be beyond it by now. But when it takes 7 generations to create this level of dysfunction, you can't expect to completely erase it in 1 generation.

When you say they wanted natives to be able to sustain themselves independently, you are saying that the Government of Canada was signing treaties in bad faith. Those treaties were agreements that the Aboriginal people would relinquish their claims to the land in return for ongoing support from Canada. But according to you, the government was trying to get out of those treaties right from the beginning.

Actually, transgender girls are welcome in Girl Guides... Transgender girls welcome But that really has nothing to do with this thread. He is just trolling along, looking for someone to play his game.

My results from June 2005 (way back in this thread): Economic Left/Right: -5.63; Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.51. April 2008: Economic Left/Right: -4.38; Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.54. Today: Economic Left/Right: -6.5; Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.62. Edited to add: it was fun to scroll through this thread and see who is still here!

What exactly is “completely false,” Hal? I’ll break it down so it is easier to point out the false statement. The USA has a travel ban that prohibits people travelling with passports from Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Iran, or Sudan from entering the country. GGC (Girl Guides of Canada) have members, leaders, and volunteers who are citizens of the banned countries and would be travelling with those passports. GGC have stated that they value inclusion, which means that any member should have equal opportunity to participate in Girl Guides activities. When planning an international trip, GGC complies with the laws of the potential host country, and therefore would not attempt to have members, leaders, or volunteers enter a country illegally. To comply with the travel ban, GGC has cancelled trips to the USA and is not planning any new trips there while the travel ban is in effect. Historically, GGC has travelled very frequently to the USA. They decided that this was a significant enough departure from their usual practice that it warranted an announcement on their webpage. It’s amazing to me that so many people are up in arms about the GGC respecting American law!

Nice attempt at deflect and distract, Bush_Cheney, but if you want to discuss Girl Guides and gender please start a new thread. You said earlier that no Girl Guides have been turned back yet, and that they should just try their luck. That makes me wonder if you think the travel ban will be overturned (again), or if you think the border guards will just disregard it. Either way, it seems like you have less faith in this ban than Trump does. I guess the other option is that you're the kind of cold hearted creep that enjoys seeing little girls cry.

Yes, anyone can be denied at any time. This wasn't about whether or not someone might be denied, though, it was about the absolute certainty that they would be denied, because they would be travelling on passports issued by countries under the travel ban. Since they know in advance that there will be people not allowed to cross the border, they are making other plans. Simple enough?

You clearly miss the point. They had several trips to the States already planned. I personally know of trips that were in the works to Washington and to California. When they realized that there were members, leaders, and volunteers who would be travelling with passports from the 6 countries restricted by the travel ban they cancelled the trips and are making alternate plans. They made a statement on their website to that effect, citing the Girl Guides belief in inclusion, which means that everyone in the group would get equal opportunities. You seem to think this is a political statement, but I think it is simply pragmatism. The situation wasn't going to work so they changed their plans. And to answer your question, if they had been planning several trips to the Netherlands and cancelled all of them for a very specific reason, yes I do think there would have been an announcement.

They had to cancel trips because kids wouldn't be able to cross the border due to their official citizenship. Therefore they needed to make a statement on their website about why the trips were being cancelled. This isn't a political statement about Trump, it is simply responding to a situation beyond their control, making the best of the situation.