Melanie_

If a criminal act takes place in Canada, it is up to the Canadian police to deal with it, not vigilantes from whatever community it took place in. You can't hold entire communities responsible for the actions of the lunatic fringe within them. Of the 352,000 Muslims in the Toronto area (according to StatsCan 2001), do you really think they all know each other, or are familiar with each others' plans? The doctor in the original article of this thread was unjustly accused, humiliated, and financially inconvenienced, because he was Muslim. Your argument is that this is what he can expect, because other Muslims have been terrorists and it is up to him to stop them. That is unfair and illogical.

You are putting the emphasis on individual Muslims when you say that they should know who is a troublemaker based solely on sharing a religion with that person, and then hold them accountable for the actions of people they don't even know. At the same time, there could be people you associate with every day who are plotting something terrible, and you could have no idea that is going on. My practical answer is to look at people as people, and base our accusations on their actions, not on the actions of others who may look like them or share a religion.

From your link... But I didn't see any indication that dentists spread HIV.

Why would it be the responsibility of Muslims to do the job of the police? Or are the authorities only expected to deal with Christian crazies? Your suggestion is vigilante action, which can go really bad, really fast.

How is your health threatened if you are monogamous?

Mainstream Muslims would make the same argument about terrorists.

I think that people are freer now to express their sexuality without worrying about intolerance and bigotry from the ignorant.

Here's some numbers from StatsCan's 2001 census. While I agree that there are smaller numbers of Muslims than Christians, I doubt they all know each other, or are responsible for other people's fanaticism. http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/P...nion/rel/on.cfm

Public stigma hasn't curtailed homosexuality throughout history; it has just driven it underground.

You assume that every Muslim knows who is involved in plotting terrorism. Why should they be held responsible for the actions of the lunatic fringe among them? It would be like saying every Christian in Texas is responsible for David Kordesh and the Waco standoff - why didn't those Texas Christians turn him over? Since they didn't, we can assume they were protecting him and sympathized with his cause. Of course that sounds ridiculous when put into that context, but it is the same thing.

As I said before, though, not having them available is a guarantee they won't be used. Yes, we in North America have access to the pill and the IUD and Depo Prevera and the patch and other forms of contraceptives - they aren't available there. Rhythm depends on having a predictable cycle. Aspirin may be cheap here, but not so much there - and its not a terribly effective method.

We had different experiences, I guess. But when it comes to PMS now, I bet I can take you on! I just repeat my favourite mantra, though: Being In Total Control, Honey!

But what did this guy do to abuse the privilege? Be born brown? As far as I can see he didn't engage in any actions that endangered anyone, but his personal freedom to go about his business was overruled by a drunken accusation based on ignorance. For you, it seems the answer is security of the group is more important than individual liberties.

Fidelity is a great way to stop the spread of AIDS, as long as neither partner is already infected. But as you say, it is one way, not the only way. I don't understand why you are so against promoting condom use as another. Do I really need to justify birth control in a monogamous relationship? There is not an abundance of birth control in Africa, its actually very hard to come by. Poverty is high, and the best way for women to control thier futures is to control their reproduction.

Just to quibble, Africa isn't a nation, it is a continent made up of many nations all with different governments. And we aren't responsible for the people there, but we can be humanitarian. Fidelity still requires birth control.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/20...r-winnipeg.html Well, seeing as how the Winnipeg Free Press is not easily accessible, I tracked down some coverage of the story from CBC.

In many parts of Africa birth control is not readily available; should they just not have sex? The entire continent? Doesn't it make more sense to make condoms available?

Yes, but you aren't raising preteens and teens (as far as I know) who are exposed to it and pick up on confusing messages. One response I could have is to unplug everything in the house and not let them be exposed. I try instead to defuse the messages with a healthy attitude about their bodies and sexuality, and a sense of personal responsibility - we may disagree on the merits of birth control as a measure of responsibility, though.

Agreed.

Since I'm not a member of their email spam collecting club, I can't read the article. I see no reference to this in any real news media. Perhaps they simply made it up. Sorry, I didn't realize the link didn't take you to the story. But Argus, your snottiness is unnecessary.

Why do you put doctor in quotation marks? Do you have some reason to doubt his medical training? And how do you know where he is placed in any community? These are assumptions you are making based on what - the same thing the drunken passenger based his assumptions and accusations on?

Not at all. People have the capacity to restrict their sexual activity, and make informed choices about who to have sex with and under what conditions (as do some animals). But they still are subject to their own innate sex drive, and it is unreasonable to expect them to never have sex because the optimum conditions can't be met. Sex is just a part of life, not something dirty or shameful. If we can recognize that, we can stop judging people's sexuality and work on real solutions to HIV.

We all operate with some degree of personal invulnerability every day; otherwise, we'd never leave our houses for fear of what might happen to us. I don't see it as an "I don't care" attitude, but rather as a self protection mechanism, however irrational it might be. Education campaigns can be used to break people's bubbles, but there will always be some who engage in risky behaviour anyway. Those people provide an educational service, too - "if you can't be a good example, you'll have to serve as a horrible warning."

Actually, I thought that article was more about Bartley Kives being inconvenienced than anything else. He tends to whine in his columns. But back to the first story - do you see a conflict in values as these fears become more pronounced? Does security trump liberty?

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/subscribe...p-4209928c.html A Winnipeg doctor was removed from an airplane in Denver because a drunken passenger accused him of being a terrorist. Apparently this was because the doctor, a Muslim, had asked his friend to switch seats so he could have more privacy for his evening prayers. The plane left without him and his two travelling companions, even though they were almost immediately cleared of posing any threat. The Transportation Security Administration guy said the airline had over-reacted, which seems to be the case. I think they could have had the plane wait while they checked out the accusation, and the guy who made the accusation should have been delayed as well, to verify his story. This is just an example of how liberty and security are clashing as paranoia continues to grow. They are both tightly held values, both in Canada and the US, but one will eventually have to take primacy over the other. Which one would you give up, in order to have the other?