Melanie_

I have to disagree with this statement. Canada has freedom of religion, and placing limits on how people express their faith is compromising this freedom. I can't see my elderly mother in law, a devout Roman Catholic, ever leaving her home without wearing her cross. However, this is done more as a choice than anything else. A Muslim woman, forced to give up her hajib, would feel violated to allow men outside of her family to see her hair uncovered. This is a basic tenet of her faith. Don't come back to me claiming the hajib is just a sign of the oppression of Muslim women - it would be equally oppressive to force them to give it up against their will.

I'm interested in where you might take this, August. But I just want to point out that I didn't say the media decides what we think, but rather that they decide what they think will be of interest to us, and therefore will sell more newspapers. For example, in today's Winnipeg Free Press there is a full page story on the bombs in London, and another half page op-ed on the same topic. There is also a tiny 2 inch hidden story about Ethiopian bandits raiding a village in Kenya, resulting in a clash that killed 71 people, including 2 dozen children. Why are their deaths not given as much coverage? Is this not also a terrorist attack? (Actually, not enough details are given to understand what the motivations were.) My argument is not that it isn't relevent to us, or that the people close to this tragedy aren't as outraged as those affected by other tragedies (as Argus would argue), but rather that we will not have access to their reaction via our local media because it isn't seen as being of interest to us. We will never hear about this massacre again (and many papers may have decided not to carry it at all - what other massacres do we not hear about?) I'm looking forward to your ideas.

Muddywaters, even though you have said you won't post here again, I will take the chance that you will visit as a guest, if for nothing more than to read this thread. Your opening post was pompous and condescending, which might account for the lack of encouragement to come back. I get the feeling you came here as a little experiment for your own website, not to truly participate. This is unfortunate, as if you could get past the judgementalism and egotism of the few posts you made (certainly not uncommon in the posts of others on this forum!) you might have seen the true debate and exchange of ideas that actually goes on here. Maybe you could let us know where your own site is, and we can come and offer our opinions on it.

You have reinforced my point, that the media really decides what is worth our attention, and what is not. Aparthied was in the news more than Rwanda because that is what publishers believed would sell more newspapers - they catered to what they thought would interest us. Riots that result from Western injustices against Muslims are deemed to be of more interest to us than any action resulting from Muslim injustice against Muslim. I don't trust journalists motives, obviously; I think the most anti-Western news is often related for the sole purpose of giving us the opportunity to claim the moral high ground, shake our heads and murmer "tsk tsk, how backwards those goat herding Arabs are, we are so superior in so many ways".

I doubt that there isn't reaction to these slaughters; do you really believe that people, regardless of where they live or what religion they practice, would not be outraged by those riots? We in the West see what the media wants us to see, and it supports the stereotypical Western view of the "average goat herding Muslim" (as you put it) when they portray a stronger reaction to Isreal's actions than India's. The demonization of the entire religion, rather than the just the extremists, feeds into the resentment that fuels people to join Bin Laden et al.

You are in your teens right now. By the time you are 50, some of these issues will not even be on the national agenda anymore - ie, women's rights to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and gay marriage will be simply part of the woodwork of Canadian society, along with equal pay for equal work and the national child care program. Health care will have evolved into something we can't even invision at this point, but hopefully will have addressed waiting lists and the whole two tier circus. The bigger question will be what will Canada look like - where will our borders be, or will there be a unified country? Will it even be recognizable from what it is today? What will be the impact of Kyoto, and the ever growing needs of the US for our natural resources? What will be the result of the war in Iraq? Current issues will be just a page in the history books, but other issues will take their place. But it is good to see people your age taking an active interest in politics, and I hope that you achieve your goal of being Premier. (God, I feel old all of a sudden. Did I really just type "people your age"?)

Actually, I don't think I'm misinterpreting at all, but I also don't think either one of us is going to convince the other. Lot's actions are arguably just as offensive as those of the men of Sodom, yet they are given barely passing observance by those who use this story to prove the immorality of Sodom, which was my original point. Those holding up this story say that this is proof of God's view on homosexuality, yet these other deviances are glossed over.

I was simply responding to Argus' post that God's views on sexual immorality were shown when he destroyed Sodom and Gommorah. Since He let it pass that Lot offered his daughters to be raped, and then fathered children on them, I can only assume that He didn't find this as sexually immoral as homosexuality.

Hawk - I can see this is has touched a nerve for you, and I am sorry if I offended you. But, I stand by my post, and you have done nothing to refute it other than to say I am wrong. If you read the link, you will see that what I have said is clearly written in the passages, so unless you are reading a different Bible, I don't understand how you can say I am incorrect.

Genesis 19. Read it yourself. But you're right, I was in error - there were actually 2 daughters involved, not one.

Of course, He was OK with Lot offering up his daughter to rapists, and then impregnating her himself....

That's fine. You all take your marbles and go play somewhere else. The new mighty nation of Saskatoba (Manitchewan?) will rise up, wheat and mosquitos in hand, to be the next superpower on the world stage!

Please don't misrepresent my post. I didn't say to hunt down Bush and Blair. Their crimes may be abundant, but they didn't plant those bombs today. In no way am I disrespectful of the suffering of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and certainly this escalation is part of the bigger picture, but if you are going to agree with me, make sure you are agreeing with what I actually said.

This is the kind of "Bush Bombast" that alienates those who would otherwise be supportive. This was a nasty, horrible, unjustifiable act of terror on Britain. Not on all civilized nations, not on freedom. The Bush/Blair version of freedom, perhaps, which they are trying to convince the rest of the world they have defined and perfected. But, having said that, this isn't a day to bash Tony Blair. Whatever the politics might be, 37 people (the last time I checked) got up this morning and went about their daily routine, and are now dead; they are the ones to focus on, along with the hundreds injured. The people responsible need to be hunted down and brought to justice, and the less political posturing and bombast involved the better.

I am not overweight - I am a Woman of Mature Proportions.

Absolutely perfect. "The coward dies a hundred deaths, the strong man dies but once", or something like that. Let her live in anticipation of what just might happen.

Big Blue Machine started another thread on this topic today. I kinda like the idea of Maple Leaf Pub...

I don't think we are talking about slave labour; at least I am not. I don't think we are suddenly going to see the social conditions of the Ivory Coast spring up in Canada, resulting in massive numbers of children dropping out of school to work in substandard conditions to provide for the basic neccessities of life, not the extra money to buy the latest Black Eyed Peas CD. Kids have always had part time jobs in the unregulated sector (babysitting, shoveling snow, mowing the lawn, delivering flyers), but we seem to get hung up on having them in the regulated sector. My only concern would be that their employers need to have a lot of patience for on the job training.

Most of us who are born and raised in Canada have no idea how much adaptation and assimilation an immigrant does when they come here. We accept and encourage behaviour that would be unheard of in their homelands, and we disrespect their traditions and values as being old fashioned, something that they should have left behind. I am just as guilty of this as anyone else - my father-in-law and I are polar opposites on many issues, and he will never understand my point of view, just as I will never accept his. Same sex marriage is a good example. And I wouldn't dream of bringing up the topic of abortion. Is it any wonder, then, that immigrants feel more comfortable in communities where people understand their language, values, and traditions? Or that they look for spouses for their children among people whom they know will share those standards? If they can be productive, have a good life and not be a drain on the rest of us, and do this in an active Chinese community, where is the harm? They will eventually assimilate, just as the mainstream culture will adapt to encorporate what they bring. That's the beauty of Canadian culture - it is elastic enough to welcome change. As for the girl being forced into marriage in Lebanon, of course I don't condone it. Young girls are not commodities, "tickets" as you put it, Argus, to be bought and sold on the marriage market. But I don't condemn arranged marriages outright, either; they are not part of our culture, so we don't understand that for many it is simply the way it is done. I had a student once, an older East Indian woman, who talked about her arranged marriage. She seemed quite happy, just as happy as many women I know who chose their own mate. Several of the other women in the class said, "I wish someone would arrange one for me!"

I don't put much faith in kids from all over the country writing the same test, and then judging the systems based on this. This would only be a valid measure if the same curriculum was taught to all the children writing the test. But with each province setting it's own curriculum, you don't know if the kids have been exposed to the same concepts on the same timeline. This could mean some children learn something in grade 8, then don't do as well on this standardized test because the knowledge isn't as fresh. Or, they will cover it in grade 10, but have covered other concepts that weren't on the test, or in their peer's curriculums, in grade 9. These tests would be skewed to favour kids in the jurisdiction in which it was set. But I do agree with you that kids strengths have to be recognized and nurtured. The pursuit of academics is so rampant in our society, that we don't always value the gifts people bring that aren't tied to formal education.

Good question, Argus. North American society has extended childhood and adolescence well beyond the age most people are considered adults in other cultures. But, having done so, we live with the resulting expectation that 12 year olds are not included in the workforce. Many 12 year olds are eager to take on some level of responsibility, and to start earning a bit of spending money. I find it amazing that we seem to accept 12 year old babysitters being solely responsible for the care and safety of younger children, but we have a hard time picturing them in a supervised workplace with health and safety regulations in place.

In fact, we do restrict access to certain programs. Immigranst are not eligible for pensions unless they have worked at least 10 years in Canada. But I agree with you in general, Sparhawk. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Immigrants are also not eligible for social assistance, unless things have changed since I got married 20 years ago. At the time my husband was a university visa student, and when we got married he became a landed immigrant. I had to guarantee that he wouldn't receive any social assistance for 10 years (I was a starving university student myself at the time, but starry eyed blind faith won out!) We were also able to sponsor his parents to come over as well, some years later, and again agreed to guarantee they would not receive social assistance. They are all visible minorities from a third world country, but my husband is a graduate of a Canadian university and English is his first language (with a moderate accent). If our sole criteria of accepting immigrants is employability, he's the poster child. But there is also the argument about people coming from other countries and setting up their own community here, without ever learning much about mainstream Canadian society. I honestly don't have a problem with this. Coming to Canada shouldn't mean abandoning all of your native culture, traditions and language. If those communities can function well enough to meet the needs of the people living in them, why shouldn't they? Canada doesn't have to look and feel and sound the same from one person to the next, on the same timetable for everyone. Assimilation happens over time - kids here in Winnipeg learn Ukranian from their parents, but it isn't their first language anymore; for their Canadian born parents it was.

Yes, Cybercoma, the same protection as everyone else. But my question was should she have extra protection, because she thinks the general public is a threat to her? And a further thought, if your answer is yes, how long should that extra protection last?

What do you think? She has been denied extra protection, but I think there is still a push from her lawyers for it to be provided. With her release either today or tomorrow, do you think she needs extra protection from the public, and should it be provided? (NO advocacy of vigilante action, please!)

Look on the sidebar, where it says Members under someone's name. It says Banned under Sweal's name on all of his previous posts.