Melanie_

We really have the same taste in books! I'm currently reading "Three Cups of Tea", although I've just started. I saw that he has another book out, called "Stones into Schools". I read "A Thousand Splendid Suns", and found it almost impossible to put down. "The Kite Runner" is still on my (ever growing) list of books to read; I saw the movie, but of course movies never measure up to the book. I checked out Amazon.com, but with shipping and dollar conversion "Born Guilty" was still pretty expensive. Then I went to Chapters.ca, and was able to order it for 6.99, plus shipping and handling, for a total of $13.00. I think it will make a few rounds here, too!

Wow, the cheapest used one on Amazon is $37.50 in Canadian dollars, plus shipping, etc! What a price difference. I'm going to have to check the library.

Oh, ok, Oleg, I'll stroke your ego... the forum wouldn't be half as interesting without you around!

I went to a play last night called "East of Berlin", about a young man finding out that his father had been a German doctor at Auschwitz; it was a hard to watch, as he struggled to live with his father's role during the war, and ultimately was unable to do so. It was inspired by a book called Born Guilty: Children of the Nazis - I haven't read it, but I think I'll look for it.

No offence taken, its all good.

Christmas is coming... what's on your wish list for new reading material? I just picked up a book for my dad (I trust he isn't lurking somewhere on this forum), called The Island of Canada: How Three Oceans Shaped our Nation, by Victor Suthren. Another book I looked at for him, and may still go back for, is Kanata, by Don Gillmor. The description of Wolfe and Montcalme on the inside jacket flap captured me right away, so I don't know who I'll eventually buy it for - him or me. I thought about getting him Just Watch Me: The Life of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, in retaliation for him buying me Mulroney a couple of years ago, but I don't think his old heart could take it.

They are. I was responding to this comment from Gabriel, though, who seems to think they shouldn't be...

I've obviously jumped into a debate that carries over from another thread, without understanding the underlying themes. My point was not to defend terrorists, but to support people who need medical care. In this context, I don't think it is important to go back decades to decide who did what to who, and who should have made different choices long ago. But, there is more to this than is being posted here, so I'm going to go back to the other thread and read that before wading in any deeper here. Edit: That thread is 46 pages long! I'll read it, but not within any time frame to rejoin this conversation. Carry on, forget I was here!

Do you have anything to say about the post itself?

The people dying in those ambulances probably weren't born in 1947, and they don't get to rewrite history. Its pretty callous to say that they deserve what they get, because of choices made by people who came before them. Instead of jumping right into another debate about what should or shouldn't have happened politically, maybe we can just have compassion for people who are in need of medical care.

So, because their grandfathers said no in 1947, its ok that they die in ambulances on their way to the hospital?

How much of this did you read? The answers are there, including how many substantiated cases of children being hit with objects (5983), among other forms of abuse. Refer to chapter 3 for full numbers, and a breakdown of exactly what each case involved. The definition of sexual abuse is clear, and it doesn't involve a father helping his child in the bath; the numbers are there for penetration, attempted penetration, oral sex, and several other forms of sexual abuse. I've given you the information twice, its up to you to actually read it. As for the credibility of the document, you can read Chapter 2 to find out the methods of collecting data, the instruments of data collection, the ethics procedures followed... As I said before, if you don't want to have CAS get involved with your family, don't beat your kids. They aren't going to interfere if you give them an occasional swat on the bum, but when there are bruises or other injuries, CAS has an obligation to protect them from their parents.

I posted that information way back in post # 53 on this thread, but in case you missed it, here it is again...

I really don't understand your complaint. You can still have a simple conversation, check that your posts are there, see if anyone has responded, etc. The upgrade hasn't changed any of that. In fact, the "new content" and "active content" buttons are great features, because you can easily see where you left off during your last visit. You can watch a particular topic or forum so you know when someone has posted something, as well. What exactly doesn't Greg get? Because I think I don't get it, either.

They are owed a quality of life, according to the treaties that were signed. The treaties agreed that the First Nations would give over certain lands, and Canada in return would provide them with an education, medical care, housing, etc, etc. The agreement was that they would not have to pay taxes, as the land covered their taxes in perpetuity. The Canadian government hasn't given back the land, so they cannot simply stop holding up their end of the bargain. The Canadian government had an odd way of trying to integrate Aboriginals into mainstream society. The residential schools were set up to "take the Indian out of the child", but they left these children in limbo - they were not culturally "Indians" anymore, but they were not accepted by white society as equals, either. The education they received at the schools was substandard at best, leaving many children functionally illiterate despite years of "schooling". It also ingrained a distrust of the educational system, and government in general, in generations of First Nations people, who have passed that distrust on to their own children. Parents who had been through the residential school system knew exactly what was waiting for their children when they were taken away, and they were powerless to prevent it from happening. I can't imagine living on an isolated reserve, knowing my child was being abused far away and having no way to protect him or her - alcoholism makes sense in that context.

Sikhism has nothing to do with Islam. Islam, along with Judaism and Christianity, sprang from the prophet Abraham. Sikhism arose in the Punjab, a province of India, about 500 or 600 years ago, and has no connection to Islam whatsoever.

I agree.

You really don't understand, do you? Or are you being deliberately obtuse? I'm not talking about one meal a week, I'm talking about children being denied food on an ongoing basis. I'm trying to show you that there is real abuse that happens to children, and you keep trying to minimize it, rather than admit that there are parents out there who are not fit to parent, and that there is a role for CAS in protecting children from them. Ok, so you want an organization that has steady funding, and will be able to function regardless of the numbers of children in their care. Your real issue, then, is the funding, not the fact that children are being taken from families when they need protection. So if CAS had stable funding, would you still object to them?

You think it is ok for a child to be starved? Denying a child food is just a parenting philosophy? I don't know how you can live with yourself with an attitude like that. So, if the police handle the crimes, what then? You don't want CAS to be involved in taking the children away, even if they need to be taken away... so what happens to them then? What is your solution?

I'm not even going to address the issue of residential schools, as that is for another thread. Maybe the solution is that if the family doesn't want CAS to "abuse" them, they shouldn't abuse their child in the first place.

How are you defining abuse? If a child is filthy, starved, crawling with vermin, is that better than being in the care of CAS? If a child is beaten daily with whatever object their parent finds at hand, is that better than being in the care of CAS? If a child is starved, shot at with a BB gun, pushed down the stairs, dragged by their hair, is that better than being in the care of CAS? If a child is raped, or forced to perform oral sex on their parent, is that better than being in the care of CAS? If a child is drugged and used to make child pornography, is that better than being in the care of CAS? Do you really think all children are better off with their parents?

Read the rest of the sentence you responded to: I just asked why you would only mention one in your response. And, one of the worst human rights situations in Canada is children being left in abusive families because people like you think it is ok for parents to do whatever they want to them, without any interference from society at large.

I haven't followed this as closely as you have, but I don't think the protesters are as blameless as you would have us believe. Of course, it is unlikely Brown and Chatwell are as blameless as they would have us believe, either. There are no saints in this situation, so the results of this trial will be interesting. Anyway, I'm an old lady, so I need to get off to bed now. Good night!

It's ok to criticize the methods, even while agreeing with the reasons why the protest came about. There may have been a philosophy of nonviolence at the beginning, but once the protest became militant, it carried the threat of violence, and the militants took over from the peaceful protesters, at least for a time. Even if no overt violence occurred towards Brown and Chatwell (and that is yet to be proven), they certainly didn't feel safe in their own home.

Even if there is a legitimate reason for the occupation, neither side should be using violence, or the threat of violence, to make their point. It weakens the arguments of the Six Nations when they threaten families and drive children from their own homes.