Melanie_

Ok, we're all getting together at Oleg's place to share a bong. I'm in! I have a few Airmiles saved up! BTW, jbg, I liked your original post. I'm sorry you felt the need to delete it; MLW is a community, and even when we disagree, it is good to know that there is a person on the other side of the computer screen.

What was Abraham`s connection to Sodom and Gamorrah? Lot was the patriarch who offered his virgin daughters to the crowd of rapists, and then violated his daughters himself, and yet was determined to be the only righteous citizen of Sodom. Obviously, a man made that determination. And Isaac's willingness to sacrifice his son, an act of infanticice, can only be interpreted today as a commandment of a self centred and narcissistic god. No wonder most feminists reject this patriarchal model of family, where the father is empowered to kill a child (or any other dependent) in the name of his own relationship with a deity - the child is seen as a pawn, rather than a person in their own right. I understand you are saying these situations are the basis of the Muslim religion, but I disagree. They are the basis of misogyny, in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Each of these three religions must deal with their inherent beliefs about the role and rights of women, before they can deal with the contrasts between them.

I doubt that statistic... 77% seems pretty high to me. But, if 77% of Canadians are sky god Christians, we really have nothing to fear from Muslims.

How many "hard line Islamists" are we talking about here? Sure there are extremists, but this is a tempest in a teapot. You could compare this to the Westboro Baptist Church, and Fred Phelps. Just a nutjob trying to advance his own nutjob agenda.

Betsy wants the Catholic Church to decide what is and isn't moral, righteous, and acceptable in Canadian society.

Sorry for causing the thread drift... Shwa, Diamond's book is pretty balanced, in my view. He doesn't seem to favour any culture over another (except perhaps the hunter-gatherers of New Guinea, who he spent 30 years with). It's a pretty academic read, mostly tracing how certain cultures came to have certain food crops, animal domestication, diseases, and technology, while other cultures didn't. He then goes on to show how those cultures were able to use those tools to their advantage when they came into contact with cultures without them. It doesn't say the cultures weren't working fine as they were, but rather that when the clash came, and one eventually came to dominate the other, there were factors at play that had nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the environment. Charter Rights, if you're story about the old man shooting game from his front door step isn't a romanticized version of the past, I don't know what is!!!

Charter Rights, you sometimes let your romanticized view of Aboriginal people get in the way of reality. The early settlers may have used some of the aboriginal farming and hunting/gathering practices initially, but they quickly realized that they could transfer the agricultural techniques of Europe to Canada; this yielded far better results than what the natives were seeing. Aboriginals had not domesticated any animals other than dogs; when the Europeans arrived with domesticated cows, horses, sheep, pigs, and chickens, Aboriginals saw the value of raising animals for food rather than relying on hunting alone. Watch Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. Or even better, read the book. It is a fascinating look at the global environmental forces that influenced which groups would become colonizers, and which would become colonized (or eliminated). He takes race out of the equation right from the beginning, and simply looks at the environments different people found themselves in.

The aboriginal people of Canada weren't defeated, though. Instead, the government entered into treaties with them. The treaties basically said they would give the government of Canada certain lands, and in exchange the government would provide them with health care, education, housing, etc etc. So, as long as the government of Canada is in possession of those lands, it has an obligation to uphold those treaty rights. I agree, I also would like a Canadian to simply be a Canadian. But until the government is willing to settle the land claims, and deal with their negligence in carrying their end of the bargain, we can't move forward.

Thanks for posting this, msj, I really enjoyed reading about your trip. If I ever get to San Diego, I will definitely check out Tim Cantor's gallery. I'm not going anywhere any time soon, but my husband and son are going to Kenya for a month this winter, so I might have a second hand story or two to share about their travels. Me, I'm just gearing up for another fun filled winter in Winnipeg!

I agree with you, morality is determined individually; that's why I said we don't have the right to judge others' decisions. Of course, we can say that our own moral judgment wouldn't allow us to make the same decisions, but then, who knows what we will decide until we are in the situation? In terms of sex as sacrifice, the example I was thinking of last night, but omitted to share, was a woman who uses sex to protect someone she loves (i.e., has sex in order to keep her children safe). She knows exactly what she is doing, and is willing to give up (sacrifice) her body for something more important to her. Another example of sex as sacrifice would be a woman who has been cut (FGM). She will never get any pleasure from sex, it will always be painful for her, but she might be willing to endure the pain in order to have a baby.

So women bear the burden of keeping the world on track? Thanks, but no thanks. This makes me wonder about the men I work with every day. Are they all secret sluts, constantly thinking about sex in the ivory tower? As they walk around in their suits and ties, carrying their briefcases full of important papers and talking seriously about academia, are they really just a raging hormone under the surface? I've read the studies and reports that say yes, this is true, but I still find it hard to believe. On the other hand, my department consists mostly of women, and we do seem to be one of the most productive.....

I think there are many valid reasons to have sex; physical and emotional pleasure may be two of them, but that doesn't cover the gamut. Physical and emotional pleasure can be found easily, without any strings attached. Sex can also be about demonstrating your commitment; it can be used as a reward; it can be about financial/personal gain; it can be about sacrifice. Who am I, and who are you, to judge why someone might choose to have sex with someone else? Sex is valid if the people involved consent, with full knowledge of what they are doing and why they are doing it.

Whenever my 21 year old son leaves the house, I tell him to keep his genes in his jeans. So far, so good.

I will depart from my old lady persona for just a moment to say.... anything with Viggo Mortenson is worth watching! I may be old, but I'm not dead!

I'm not generally into blood and guts movies, but I accidentally saw a scene from Hostel... that was too much for me! I wouldn't want to see anything that someone thought was beyond that.

My intention wasn’t really to call the soldiers’ actions into question, although as I read it of course I see that is how it sounds. My point was that he was acting just as anyone else would probably act in the same situation; I agree with Segnosaur that a teenager can understand killing is wrong, but it is likely that he had been indoctrinated to see the soldiers as the ones doing the killing, and to interpret their actions as wrong. This is part of the reason children are used in these conflicts – they can easily be manipulated and convinced of the “rightness” of their side. There is debate about whether or not the CRC applies to him, because he was a child “terrorist” or “illegal combatant” rather than a “child soldier”. But the Optional Protocol referred to in an earlier post talks about (bolding mine)which to me seems to encompass someone like Khadr. It goes on to state, in Article 4 that This tells me Canada has a case against Khadr’s mother. And, as I quoted earlier, This implies that Canada had a responsibility to repatriate Khadr much earlier, and work on rehabilitation rather than leaving him in Gitmo for the last 8 years. Of course, there can be other interpretations of this Protocol, but as signatories to it Canada is obligated to figure out what it means and how it guides our actions in this case.

As mentioned in post 67, the Geneva Convention was amended in 1949, to directly address child combatants. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was passed in 1989, and Canada adopted the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict. I think the most relevent piece of this protocol in terms of Omar Khadr, and Canada's obligations towards him, is:

That is where it gets murky. The CRC talks about children participating in armed conflict, not necessarily in organized armies. A child recruited by a terrorist organization is still covered by the CRC; it talks about the parties of the conflict, which could include Al Quaeda. The Paris Principles which governed the tribunals about child soldiers in Sierra Leone stated that children associated with armed forces or armed groups should be considered primarily as victims of offences against international law. That doesn't rule out prosecution, but even if they are found guilty they must be given opportunities for restorative justice and rehabilitation.

From what I can see, though, the Geneva Convention was amended in 1949 to directly address the issue of children in conflicts. And the Convention on the Rights of the Child came into effect in 1989, again setting out guidelines for how to deal with children participating in war. In Sierra Leone, rather than prosecuting the child soldiers, they chose to prosecute the people who recruited them - this is what I would like to see happen with Omar Khadr's mother.

So killing isn't wrong if it is your job. Got it. Whatever happened in WWII wasn't governed by the same rules and treaties we have in place now. Maybe we've learned something from the experiences of child soldiers back then, that has helped us protect children from manipulative armies, generals, and jihadists today.

Did the soldiers that attacked the encampment he was in understand "killing = wrong"? How old were they? We're talking about a 15 year old kid who was severely wounded in a battle and expected to die. I wonder how many American or Canadian soldiers would continue fighting under those circumstances. He didn't choose to be in Afghanistan, his parents placed him there, and I agree with ToadBrother, his mother should be charged with abuse (his father is dead). She still lives in Toronto; I don't know what exactly she could be charged with (reckless endangerment? corruption of a minor?) but there must be a way to hold her accountable. Canada is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which specifically states that children cannot be used as soldiers (sorry, Army Guy, that applies across the board, not just in Africa and Asia); as part of upholding our obligations to this Convention, we should be prosecuting Omar Khadr's mother.

I read this over the summer. It was interesting, but not what I expected. I felt like I needed to be an architect to really understand the technical descriptions of the building of the cathedral, and I never found a character that I actually liked. I'm not sure I would read another book by him - maybe it was just overhyped for me.

I went to see Fiddler on the Roof on the weekend, one of my favourite plays. Of course, one of the great songs is , and I kept thinking of this thread as they performed it. So Timothy, this is for you:

The article Shwa posted speaks to some of this, August. Devolution of the federal government's responsibility for First Nations education has been happening for 40 years, but there hasn't really been a good system put into place. But I have to ask, if it is paternalistic to expect the federal government to fund on reserve education, is it also paternalistic to expect the province to fund off reserve education?

I don't know the standards in other provinces, but in Manitoba every child care centre must have 2/3 of their staff trained to the ECE II or ECE III level. An ECE II has a 2 year college diploma, and an ECE III has a BA in child development, or an equivelent level of education. 1/3 of staff can be classified as Child Care Assistants, which means they pass the basic requirements of having a clean criminal records check, a clean child abuse registry check, hold a valid first aid certificate, and have successfully completed a 40 hour course in child development. We also have a public regulatory body that sets out standards that child care centres must meet, and that inspects child care centres every three months to ensure these standards are being met. It doesn't mean it is a perfect system, and there are certainly infractions that take place, but it is set up to strive towards a quality system. But back to the issue of on reserve kindergarten.... Shwa posted an excellent article that showed clearly some of the issues that face on reserve schools. Funding and lack of infrastructure are a big piece of it, as well as the ongoing need to resolve the historical use of education as a tool of colonialism and oppression (residential schools), which generated mistrust of the goals of education. The article also talks about how there is no real transferability from reserve schools to off reserve schools, as children are generally two grades behind their off reserve age mates. With this in mind, having some children get an even more extensive academic head start may put on reserve children at a further disadvantage. I'm not a real big fan of the idea of full day kindergarten, by the way. I think our society is pushing academics on children at earlier and earlier ages, so that they are pressured into formal learning way before they are ready for it. Maybe the on-reserve children are actually being given an advantage, in that they have more time to simply play and be children.