Khadr should make us ashamed to be Canadian

[Guest American Woman]

Stop interfering in the affairs of other countries so these quagmires don't develop. You do realize that most of the weapons and ammunition that finds its way into the hands of conflict children were manufactured and distributed by America and its allies don't you?

Yes, if only it weren't for us, there would be no child soldiers. There would be no quagmires. There would be no civil war. There would be no wars at all, therefore no child soldiers.

I was asking for a real solution here, not just another irrelevant "blame the U.S." response; I was referring to/posting about/asking about a solution to "child soldiers," not where their weapons come from.

The arms industry is unlike any other. It operates without regulation. It suffers from widespread corruption and bribes. And it makes its profits on the back of machines designed to kill and maim human beings.

So who profits most from this murderous trade? The five permanent members of the UN Security Council—the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China. Together, they are responsible for eighty eight per cent of reported conventional arms exports. “We can’t have it both ways. We can’t be both the world’s leading champion of peace and the world’s leading supplier of arms.” Former US President Jimmy Carter, presidential campaign, 1976

...oh yes you can...

2008 - On October 31, 147 states at the United Nations voted overwhelmingly to move forward with work on an Arms Trade Treaty. Only the US and Zimbabwe voted against it.

Source

Again, this has nothing to do with the issue of how to deal with child soldiers. It gets tiring when the U.S. military is constantly brought up regardless of the topic/issue. If I was interested in posting about that issue, I would be. But in this thread, in the post you are responding to, I was, and still am, interested in the problem of child soldiers and how to deal with it.

But since your information is outdated, I'll at least keep you current:

DISARMAMENT: U.N. to Pursue Conventional Arms Trade Treaty Posted by editors on October 31, 2009

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 30 (IPS) – The United Nations, which is pursuing a proposal for ”a world without nuclear weapons”, will soon turn its attention to another new goal in the field of disarmament: creating a legally-binding treaty on conventional arms.

The proposed new treaty, which is expected to be ready for a U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty in 2012, will regulate the global trade in conventional arms, including fighter planes, combat helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, warships, missiles, battle tanks and armoured personnel carriers.

By an overwhelming majority, the 192-member General Assembly adopted a resolution Friday, after years of negotiations, that sets the stage for ”common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms”.

Some of the world’s biggest arms traders, including the United States, Britain, France and Germany, supported the resolution, which garnered 153 out of 192 votes.

In less than a year, Goldring pointed out, the U.S. government has gone from being one of the chief opponents of the proposed treaty to being a strong supporter.

[Guest American Woman]

I am telling you outright that I think every single thing you have outlined above as being abusive is in total harmony with what I think.

So why don't you blame his parents? Why are you ok with his mother living totally free of any responsibility in your country? Why aren't you furious about that?

Like I said, if this is the case they should use the evidence they have and charge his parents.

I don't get, in light of your total agreement to everything I said, your continual use of the word "if." There is no "if." Why you keep going back to that instead of being critical/furious over the fact that his mother has not been charged is something I find totally in opposition to your criticism of everyone/everything else.

However, think about it for a minute...It's actually very easy to understand why the government hasn't done anything to shine a closer spotlight on Khadr's upbringing. If the government charges Omar Khadr's parents with abuse, with radicalising him and filling his head with crap and putting him into a hostile combat environment it would undermine the entire basis for charging Omar Khadr. It would be a tacit admission that Omar was indeed an innocent victim that was turned into a child soldier/combatant against his will - that he was a deeply abused and disturbed child and his incapacity stemming from his abuse should have rendered him utterly and virtually automatically innocent.

So why doesn't that make you furious??

It's bad enough to imagine that the government of Canada is deliberately crapping on Khadr's rights to keep its base of support in a state of excited delirium but its even worse knowing this has been done to promote and maintain the fiction that he is undeserving of the due process and special consideration that any other abused minor or child soldier would get. I think these will be the grounds that are finally used to show the government manipulated and ignored the facts it has at its disposal to knowingly and maliciously slander Omar Khadr's name. I think it is so guilty of complicity in his on going abuse that a $100 million dollar settlement would not be out of order in the least.

I'm more concerned about the people responsible for child soldiers being raised that way than I am about giving money to the "victim." Money from the taxpayers. HOLD THE PARENTS RESPONSIBLE. In this case, according to your scenario, not only does the mother get off, but her son has millions of dollars. You don't think she'd benefit from that fact??

This fine should be shared proportionally between Mr Khadr's parent's and every other Canadian citizen. This is as it should be in a democratic country where citizen's are responsible and can be held to account for their own actions or inactions as well as their governments.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The taxpayers have nothing to do with the situation; with creating it, or dealing with the aftermath. Canadians are stuck with this woman living in your country, getting all the benefits every other Canadian gets -- in spite of the fact that she raised her minor son to be an enemy soldier/combatant/whatever of your country. The taxpayers should be furious about this, not held responsible/accountable.

[eyeball]

So why don't you blame his parents?

I do.

Why are you ok with his mother living totally free of any responsibility in your country?

I'm not, who said I was?

Why aren't you furious about that?

I am.

I don't get, in light of your total agreement to everything I said, your continual use of the word "if." There is no "if." Why you keep going back to that instead of being critical/furious over the fact that his mother has not been charged is something I find totally in opposition to your criticism of everyone/everything else.

Sure there is, if the government as you say has all the evidence it needs to charge then why hasn't it? What do you think would happen if they did? I told you why I don't think they did so I fail to see why this remains so confusing for you.

So why doesn't that make you furious??

It does.

I'm more concerned about the people responsible for child soldiers being raised that way than I am about giving money to the "victim." Money from the taxpayers. HOLD THE PARENTS RESPONSIBLE. In this case, according to your scenario, not only does the mother get off, but her son has millions of dollars. You don't think she'd benefit from that fact??

The victim here is Omar Khadr not his mother. The only thing getting off the hook here so far is the government. Doesn't that make you furious in the least?

I couldn't disagree with you more. The taxpayers have nothing to do with the situation; with creating it, or dealing with the aftermath. Canadians are stuck with this woman living in your country, getting all the benefits every other Canadian gets -- in spite of the fact that she raised her minor son to be an enemy soldier/combatant/whatever of your country. The taxpayers should be furious about this, not held responsible/accountable.

You don't believe citizens of a democracy should be held accountable for what their government does or doesn't do?

[eyeball]

In less than a year, Goldring pointed out, the U.S. government has gone from being one of the chief opponents of the proposed treaty to being a strong supporter. [/i]

Good its about God damn time. Perhaps the simple lessons of the last few years are finally impinging on your government. That said I'll wait until the actual vote on the arms treaty in 2012 before I conclude they've had any impact.

[eyeball]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Who's guarding them now?

[M.Dancer]

Lil Omar isn't a victim, he's a perpetrator

[Guest American Woman]

Good its about God damn time. Perhaps the simple lessons of the last few years are finally impinging on your government. That said I'll wait until the actual vote on the arms treaty in 2012 before I conclude they've had any impact.

It's really difficult for you to give the U.S. credit for anything, isn't it? That said, go ahead and wait; I can tell how interested you are in the matter by the fact that you weren't even aware of the U.S.'s current position on it.

[Guest American Woman]

Sure there is, if the government as you say has all the evidence it needs to charge then why hasn't it?

That's a good question, and if I were Canadian, I'd be angry that it hasn't.

What do you think would happen if they did? I told you why I don't think they did so I fail to see why this remains so confusing for you.

Perhaps because I don't necessarily agree with your take on things. But what I said I find confusing is your constant reference to "IF," as if the evidence isn't there. You're still doing it, even after you said you agreed with me.

As for why I think your government hasn't charged Omar's mother: I think Canada is afraid of appearing 'discriminatory' against Muslims. His parents got away with their actions long before Omar was caught fighting with the enemy, so your reasoning doesn't explain that.

The victim here is Omar Khadr not his mother. The only thing getting off the hook here so far is the government. Doesn't that make you furious in the least?

Of course the government isn't the only thing getting off the hook so far. His mother is getting off the hook. We've just been through all that.

Furthermore, I'd love to know how the taxpayers having to pay millions of dollars hurts the government. How would the government be hurting by that? It wouldn't, so the government would still be getting off the hook. That's not holding the government accountable. It's passing accountability onto the taxpayers, the majority of whom didn't even vote for those holding positions in the government.

And yes, Omar is the victim of his parents' abuse, but if he gets millions of dollars from the government, you don't think his mother will benefit from that? I can tell you right now, if my daughters received multi-millions of dollars, I would benefit from that too.

One last point. Victims can, and do, turn out to be criminals. We don't say, 'well, he's the victim of abuse, so we won't try him for murder; he's a victim, after all.' It doesn't work that way. If we looked into the background of every criminal and didn't hold them accountable if they suffered abuse, there would be a lot of criminals not being held accountable for their actions.

So someone can be a victim AND a criminal. Which is another reason I don't agree with your reasoning as to why Canada hasn't pressed child abuse charges against Omar's mother. They could hold her accountable for abuse and still maintain their same position regarding Omar.

You don't believe citizens of a democracy should be held accountable for what their government does or doesn't do?

I think those who commit wrongs should be held accountable. Why should I be held accountable for someone else's actions, especially when I didn't even vote for them and disagreed with their actions myself? How would my paying out my hard earned money 'punish' them?

Edited November 20, 2009 by American Woman

[eyeball]

It's really difficult for you to give the U.S. credit for anything, isn't it? That said, go ahead and wait; I can tell how interested you are in the matter by the fact that you weren't even aware of the U.S.'s current position on it.

I've known that Obama has been talking about tying human rights to aid in Ethiopia for awhile now, just like he's also talked about closing Guantanamo for some time now. The U.S. deserves much credit for talking. Talking is something the U.S. is very very good at.

I'll wait but surely you'll forgive me for not holding my breath.

[eyeball]

Perhaps because I don't necessarily agree with your take on things. But what I said I find confusing is your constant reference to "IF," as if the evidence isn't there. You're still doing it, even after you said you agreed with me.

I don't KNOW if the evidence is there! You say it is, I only think it might be, many posters around here found Khadr's family guilty years ago so they must be convinced this evidence exists. But here's that big if again, if the government really had evidence don't you think they'd have used it by now?

As for why I think your government hasn't charged Omar's mother: I think Canada is afraid of appearing 'discriminatory' against Muslims. His parents got away with their actions long before Omar was caught fighting with the enemy, so your reasoning doesn't explain that.

So what? The government's fear of appearing soft is no excuse for not divulging its evidence. It should be more afraid of appearing to be complicit in war crimes to wit, the torture of a captured child soldier and the denial of their right to due process.

Of course the government isn't the only thing getting off the hook so far. His mother is getting off the hook. We've just been through all that.

Furthermore, I'd love to know how the taxpayers having to pay millions of dollars hurts the government. How would the government be hurting by that? It wouldn't, so the government would still be getting off the hook. That's not holding the government accountable. It's passing accountability onto the taxpayers, the majority of whom didn't even vote for those holding positions in the government.

It's the taxpayers that need to be punished. How else are we going to learn that there are consequences to letting our government get away with crimes against humanity? Why on Earth do you think I'm constantly advocating that fundamental changes need to be made to the way we govern ourselves? Do you or do you not agree with the principle that in a democracy the people are ultimately responsible for the actions of their government. Yes or no?

And yes, Omar is the victim of his parents' abuse, but if he gets millions of dollars from the government, you don't think his mother will benefit from that? I can tell you right now, if my daughters received multi-millions of dollars, I would benefit from that too.

I don't know and I don't really care to tell you the truth. As I see it the point of the fine is to punish Canadians for not properly governing themselves. A government is just a thing, and in a democratic country like our's its what voters do with it that counts.

One last point. Victims can, and do, turn out to be criminals. We don't say, 'well, he's the victim of abuse, so we won't try him for murder; he's a victim, after all.' It doesn't work that way. If we looked into the background of every criminal and didn't hold them accountable if they suffered abuse, there would be a lot of criminals not being held accountable for their actions

.

I entirely agree with your last point. I would add however that in those cases when looking at a criminal's background does reveal a history of abuse that this should be grounds for attempting to rehabilitate them. This requires we treat every suspected criminal like human beings right from the get go. In the case of children it goes without saying that they deserve special consideration.

So someone can be a victim AND a criminal. Which is another reason I don't agree with your reasoning as to why Canada hasn't pressed child abuse charges against Omar's mother. They could hold her accountable for abuse and still maintain their same position regarding Omar.

Your saying that even if the government knew Omar Khadr had been abused and radicalised from a young age that he should still be tortured some more and left to rot in a politically motivated legal limbo? Are you actually proud of how our governments have been treating Omar Khadr?

I think those who commit wrongs should be held accountable. Why should I be held accountable for someone else's actions, especially when I didn't even vote for them and disagreed with their actions myself? How would my paying out my hard earned money 'punish' them?

I believe I already addressed these questions. I'll reserve any more comment until you answer the last two questions I asked. If its yes to both however, I don't see much point in debating issues of fundamental justice with you to tell you the truth. If its yes, we're clearly of different sides of what is probably an unbridgeable gap.

Edited November 20, 2009 by eyeball

[Guest American Woman]

I've known that Obama has been talking about tying human rights to aid in Ethiopia for awhile now, just like he's also talked about closing Guantanamo for some time now. The U.S. deserves much credit for talking. Talking is something the U.S. is very very good at.

Just as I suspected. When the U.S. opposed the Arms Trade Treaty, you were critical of the U.S. for being in opposition. Now that the U.S. is one of its biggest supporters, you are critical of the U.S. because apparently the U.S. is good at talking. Of course Canada's support of the treaty is due to the fact that Canada, along with all the other nations, is oh-so-sincere. They all deserve credit. The U.S., however, is just "good at talking." That's all there is to our support. Just talk.

Nothing is ever good enough for you, apparently. It's just as I suspected. There is no pleasing you. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't KNOW if the evidence is there! You say it is, I only think it might be, many posters around here found Khadr's family guilty years ago so they must be convinced this evidence exists. But here's that big if again, if the government really had evidence don't you think they'd have used it by now?

Either Omar, as a 15 year old, was in Afghanistan of his own free will, mingling with al Qaeda/the Taliban, in which case his parents should have taken responsibility and kept him home, or his parents were raising him that way. Either way, his parents were guilty of, at best, extreme neglect, or as is more likely, abuse -- raising him that way.

How you can deny that, how you can say there 'may be no evidence' of that, is beyond me. It's incredible to me how dismissive you are of Omar's parents part in this as you think the taxpayers should be held accountable for what happened to him.

But for the fact that his parents were totally unfit, Omar wouldn't have been where he was and he would not now be where he is.

Why hasn't the government acted? I already gave my views on that.

The government's fear of appearing soft is no excuse for not divulging its evidence. It should be more afraid of appearing to be complicit in war crimes to wit, the torture of a captured child soldier and the denial of their right to due process.

I didn't say it was an acceptable excuse; not all reasons are "acceptable." I, too, find it unacceptable, and have said so repeatedly. Why you don't do the same, in light of your strong views on other matters concerning Omar, is what I find completely unexplainable and contradictory.

It's the taxpayers that need to be punished.

This is my proof. It's the taxpayers who need to be punished?? The taxpayers didn't raise him, the taxpayers didn't send him to Afghanistan, the taxpayers didn't teach him to fight against us, the taxpayers didn't even have a vote on how he was treated after he was caught fighting in Afghanistan.

How else are we going to learn that there are consequences to letting our government get away with crimes against humanity?

Letting the government get away with it? How did I "let" Bush et al do what they did? Should I have made a citizen's arrest? How did Canadians let Omar's parents get away with raising him the way they did?

Why on Earth do you think I'm constantly advocating that fundamental changes need to be made to the way we govern ourselves? Do you or do you not agree with the principle that in a democracy the people are ultimately responsible for the actions of their government. Yes or no?

I already said no. For one thing, we don't live in true democracies; we live in Republics. We don't get to vote on whether or not we go to war. We weren't part of the decision-making regarding Omar.

As I see it the point of the fine is to punish Canadians for not properly governing themselves. A government is just a thing, and in a democratic country like our's its what voters do with it that counts.

And as I see it, the government and his parents are the ones who should be punished. The citizens, if wrongs were committed, had nothing to do with the way he was raised, with his being there, with his treatment after. Furthermore, people who don't even pay taxes aren't even involved in 'your' "punishment."

I entirely agree with your last point. I would add however that in those cases when looking at a criminal's background does reveal a history of abuse that this should be grounds for attempting to rehabilitate them. This requires we treat every suspected criminal like human beings right from the get go. In the case of children it goes without saying that they deserve special consideration.

Every criminal is being treated like a human being right from the get-go by the fact that they are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers.

While it's sad that abuse exists, the best way to deal with it is to nip it in the bud; to go after abusive parents before it's too late for the child. Do you have any idea of the cost that would be involved if we look into their background to see, after the fact, if they were abused or not? What about Charles Manson? What if he had been abused? Should we have tried to rehabilitate him? What about Hitler? Perhaps we should have "treated him like a human being" by looking into his past and trying to rehabilitate him.

Your saying that even if the government knew Omar Khadr had been abused and radicalised from a young age that he should still be tortured some more and left to rot in a politically motivated legal limbo? Are you actually proud of how our governments have been treating Omar Khadr?

Since I've made my stand on torture and the right to a trial well known, I can't understand your need to ask. As for whether I'm proud of how my government has been treating Omar, again, I've made it quite clear that I'm proud of very little that Bush et al has done. I am, however, fine with the fact that Obama is making the effort to shut Guantanamo down. As for whether I'm proud of how your country has been treating him, I have a problem with how your government has been treating this whole situation.

I'll reserve any more comment until you answer the last two questions I asked. If its yes to both however, I don't see much point in debating issues of fundamental justice with you to tell you the truth. If its yes, we're clearly of different sides of what is probably an unbridgeable gap.

It's clear that we are on different sides of this issue. While I am all for "fundamental justice," I believe that justice involves going after and punishing the guilty, not punishing the innocent. So you're right. There is not much point in further debate with you.

Edited November 21, 2009 by American Woman

[jbg]

It's bad enough to imagine that the government of Canada is deliberately crapping on Khadr's rights.....

What about the rights of ordinary Canadians that have built the country, not of leeches who become "Canadians" to take?

[eyeball]

Of course Canada's support of the treaty is due to the fact that Canada, along with all the other nations, is oh-so-sincere.

I think it probably has more to do with our trying to appear sincere. There is no doubt in my mind that my government has a bad habit of leaving the uglier aspects of economic and military imperialism up to its allies.

Nothing is ever good enough for you, apparently. It's just as I suspected. There is no pleasing you. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Please don't take it personally. I think we're both damned because neither of us have any sort of meaningful control of what our governments do or don't do in our names.

I just can't bring myself to defend my government to the extent you defend your's. I think that's the main difference between us.

[wulf42]

What about the rights of ordinary Canadians that have built the country, not of leeches who become "Canadians" to take?

Exactly right! These leeches have worn out the Welcome mat, Canadians have had enough of these people coming here spewing their hatred while taking in all the benefits of being a "Canadian"...it is BS! If these people come here fine but live by our values and culture or get out! As soon as these people like Omar's Al Qaeda loving family spew their garbage they should get the BOOT by our Government!

Edited November 22, 2009 by wulf42

[jbg]

As soon as these people like Omar's Al Qaeda loving family spew their garbage they should get the BOOT by our Government!

Or, as traitors, given a chance to meet Allah.

[wulf42]

Or, as traitors, given a chance to meet Allah.

Agreed!!

[eyeball]

Either Omar, as a 15 year old, was in Afghanistan of his own free will, mingling with al Qaeda/the Taliban, in which case his parents should have taken responsibility and kept him home, or his parents were raising him that way. Either way, his parents were guilty of, at best, extreme neglect, or as is more likely, abuse -- raising him that way.

How you can deny that, how you can say there 'may be no evidence' of that, is beyond me. It's incredible to me how dismissive you are of Omar's parents part in this as you think the taxpayers should be held accountable for what happened to him.

In the first place a minor's capacity for appropriately exercising their free will is still in question because it is still under development. That is why we have established the principle that minors are not to be treated the same as an adult. Can this capacity be adversely affected by abuse or bad parenting? Clearly it can. I am not dismissing Omar's terrible parenting at all nor denying there is any evidence this occurred I'm simply saying if the government has any it should present it and use it. I do believe its entirely possible his parents did fill his head with a pile of political and religious crap and I'm convinced this is going on in lots of other households here and around the world all the time.

How did Canadians let Omar's parents get away with raising him the way they did?

The fear as you pointed out above, to be seen going after a particular group, in this case Muslims is probably what paralysed the government. So this begs the question exactly who is the government afraid of here? Canadians naturally. How to address the radicalising of people is clearly a touchy subject. Obviously the government can't just go around investigating people for the crap they put in their kids heads but they can work harder to ensure that schools teach appropriate critical thinking skills to counter the crap. Including deliberately teaching kids to question the authority and wisdom of their parents, religion and government on occasion. I suspect a lot of Canadians would have real issues with this and so it doesn't happen. This is a personal decision that each individual makes that has consequences and we deserve what we get.

A country's leader is not unlike like a family's parent, both need to lead by example and both need to be seen as thinking critically if they expect those who are being led or raised to think critically themselves. The only sign I recall of this from any western government leader in regards to 9/11 and the whole stinking mess that followed was when Chretien said "You know, you cannot exercise your powers to the point that of humiliation for the others. And that is what the Western world, not only the Americans, the Western world has to realize, because they are human beings too, and there are long-term consequences if you don't look hard at the reality in 10 or 20 or 30 years from now. And I do think that the Western world is going to be too rich in relation to the poor world. And necessarily, you know, we look upon us being arrogant, self-satisfying, greedy and with no limits. And the 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize that it's even more."

It's clear that we are on different sides of this issue. While I am all for "fundamental justice," I believe that justice involves going after and punishing the guilty, not punishing the innocent. So you're right. There is not much point in further debate with you.

I think the reason we're at such odds here stems from your observation that we don't live in true democracies. I think this is a deplorable state of affairs that we need to change and you appear to think this is how it should be.

Edited November 22, 2009 by eyeball

[Guest TrueMetis]

Exactly right! These leeches have worn out the Welcome mat, Canadians have had enough of these people coming here spewing their hatred while taking in all the benefits of being a "Canadian"...it is BS! If these people come here fine but live by our values and culture or get out! As soon as these people like Omar's Al Qaeda loving family spew their garbage they should get the BOOT by our Government!

I have a feeling your values are nothing like my values or the majority of this boards values.

[jbg]

The fear as you pointed out above, to be seen going after a particular group, in this case Muslims is probably what paralysed the government. So this begs the question exactly who is the government afraid of here? Canadians naturally. How to address the radicalising of people is clearly a touchy subject.Obviously the government can't just go around investigating people for the crap they put in their kids heads but they can work harder to ensure that schools teach appropriate critical thinking skills to counter the crap.

There is of course freedom of speech. But the radicalizing influences advocate violence against society. This is sedition, and should be punished as such. There is no obligation on the part of society to allow itself to be destroyed. Canada has a right to protect its identity and the society's rights trump those of the Khadr family.

Including deliberately teaching kids to question the authority and wisdom of their parents, religion and government on occasion. I suspect a lot of Canadians would have real issues with this and so it doesn't happen. This is a personal decision that each individual makes that has consequences and we deserve what we get. A country's leader is not unlike like a family's parent, both need to lead by example and both need to be seen as thinking critically if they expect those who are being led or raised to think critically themselves.

This is illusory. Some 20-something teacher prattling to a classroom full of 25 students is not going to overcome the legacy of hate being taught at home. The strategy you have in mind is doomed to failure. What is needed is to learn what is going on in the mosques and over the Internet to radicalize these impressionable young people and put a dead stop to it.

The only sign I recall of this from any western government leader in regards to 9/11 and the whole stinking mess that followed was when Chretien said "You know, you cannot exercise your powers to the point that of humiliation for the others. And that is what the Western world, not only the Americans, the Western world has to realize, because they are human beings too, and there are long-term consequences if you don't look hard at the reality in 10 or 20 or 30 years from now. And I do think that the Western world is going to be too rich in relation to the poor world. And necessarily, you know, we look upon us being arrogant, self-satisfying, greedy and with no limits. And the 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize that it's even more."

I don't think it's Canada's and the West's obligation to lower itself to the level of societies that are savage, ignorant and violent. Too bad if the West advances while the Islamic world retreats towards further medieval tendencies. I'm sorry if it's embarrassing. We do not need to emulate a failed culture.

I think the reason we're at such odds here stems from your observation that we don't live in true democracies. I think this is a deplorable state of affairs that we need to change and you appear to think this is how it should be.

I don't know why you're introducing into the discussion democracy, I guess, in the Athenian sense. Direct democracy doesn't work in large-scale societies. Representative government does.

[eyeball]

There is of course freedom of speech. But the radicalizing influences advocate violence against society. This is sedition, and should be punished as such. There is no obligation on the part of society to allow itself to be destroyed. Canada has a right to protect its identity and the society's rights trump those of the Khadr family.

Again, IF the government has evidence of sedition it should use it. As I suggested earlier I think if the government did this it would undermine the case its made that Omar knowingly and of his own informed free will decided to become a terrorist. If this kid was as abused and radicalised as you seem to believe how could you possibly hold him criminally responsible for the result? Because he was fifteen? How long do you think it took to radicalise and abuse him?

This is illusory. Some 20-something teacher prattling to a classroom full of 25 students is not going to overcome the legacy of hate being taught at home. The strategy you have in mind is doomed to failure. What is needed is to learn what is going on in the mosques and over the Internet to radicalize these impressionable young people and put a dead stop to it.

What we also need is to learn what is going on in the back-rooms of power so we can put a dead stop to the Machinations that are at the heart of the root causes of most of the conflict the planet is mired in. The very things that fuel radicalisation in the first place.

Its all about accountability in government and just like a family it should start from the top down, not the bottom up.

I don't think it's Canada's and the West's obligation to lower itself to the level of societies that are savage, ignorant and violent. Too bad if the West advances while the Islamic world retreats towards further medieval tendencies. I'm sorry if it's embarrassing. We do not need to emulate a failed culture.

We don't need to save them either.

I don't know why you're introducing into the discussion democracy, I guess, in the Athenian sense. Direct democracy doesn't work in large-scale societies. Representative government does.

The policies designed to make representative democracies transparent don't work so what else is there besides direct democracy to ensure the people are actually being represented, our representatives word? How quaint and backwards.

Let me give that a moment's critical thought...um...forget it.

[jbg]

Again, IF the government has evidence of sedition it should use it. As I suggested earlier I think if the government did this it would undermine the case its made that Omar knowingly and of his own informed free will decided to become a terrorist. If this kid was as abused and radicalised as you seem to believe how could you possibly hold him criminally responsible for the result? Because he was fifteen? How long do you think it took to radicalise and abuse him?

Yes.

A terrorist is a terrorist as much as a proof is a proof.

What we also need is to learn what is going on in the back-rooms of power so we can put a dead stop to the Machinations that are at the heart of the root causes of most of the conflict the planet is mired in. The very things that fuel radicalisation in the first place.

Let's call a spade a spade. If Muslims are welcome in the West why aren't we welcome in the Muslim world?

[Guest American Woman]

In the first place a minor's capacity for appropriately exercising their free will is still in question because it is still under development. That is why we have established the principle that minors are not to be treated the same as an adult. Can this capacity be adversely affected by abuse or bad parenting? Clearly it can. I am not dismissing Omar's terrible parenting at all nor denying there is any evidence this occurred I'm simply saying if the government has any it should present it and use it. I do believe its entirely possible his parents did fill his head with a pile of political and religious crap and I'm convinced this is going on in lots of other households here and around the world all the time.

The government, if it's paying attention at all, does have evidence. That's my point. I think it's wrong and upsetting that nothing is being done.

The fear as you pointed out above, to be seen going after a particular group, in this case Muslims is probably what paralysed the government.

I agree. And the child suffered for it, while the mother is getting away with abuse, all in the government's desire to be PC. What utter stupidity, IMO.

So this begs the question exactly who is the government afraid of here? Canadians naturally.

Canadians? Or just a small percentage of Canadians? I'm sure there are many Canadians who are upset that the government hasn't acted.

How to address the radicalising of people is clearly a touchy subject. Obviously the government can't just go around investigating people for the crap they put in their kids heads

There's a huge difference between "putting crap in kids heads" and raising a child to be a combatant/child soldier.

but they can work harder to ensure that schools teach appropriate critical thinking skills to counter the crap.

It's not up to the schools to counteract abuse at home. It's up to the proper services to deal with the abuse. Omar wasn't even in the Canadian school system. He was in Afghanistan. The schools would have had no effect even if they were doing everything you've suggested since Omar wasn't there.

Including deliberately teaching kids to question the authority and wisdom of their parents, religion and government on occasion.

IMO, the schools would be stepping out of line to teach children to question the "authority" and "wisdom" of their parents. Also, religion has no place in the schools at all.

I suspect a lot of Canadians would have real issues with this and so it doesn't happen. This is a personal decision that each individual makes that has consequences and we deserve what we get.

A lot of Canadians would rightfully have real issues with it.

A country's leader is not unlike like a family's parent, both need to lead by example and both need to be seen as thinking critically if they expect those who are being led or raised to think critically themselves. The only sign I recall of this from any western government leader in regards to 9/11 and the whole stinking mess that followed was when Chretien said "You know, you cannot exercise your powers to the point that of humiliation for the others. And that is what the Western world, not only the Americans, the Western world has to realize, because they are human beings too, and there are long-term consequences if you don't look hard at the reality in 10 or 20 or 30 years from now. And I do think that the Western world is going to be too rich in relation to the poor world. And necessarily, you know, we look upon us being arrogant, self-satisfying, greedy and with no limits. And the 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize that it's even more."

Omar and his parents were living in Canada. It was the parents' choice to leave Canada and raise the kids the way they did. They weren't living in a "poor world" except by choice. Furthermore, people in the western world are doing more to help Muslims who are living in poverty than the extremist Muslims are. What charitable work are they doing? All I see them doing is using violence against their fellow Muslims if they don't follow their extremist views. The people who masterminded 9-11 couldn't care less about the Muslims living in poverty if their actions, or lack thereof, are any indication.

I think the reason we're at such odds here stems from your observation that we don't live in true democracies. I think this is a deplorable state of affairs that we need to change and you appear to think this is how it should be.

I think we're at odds because since we don't live in a true democracy and therefore aren't accountable for our government's actions, the taxpayers shouldn't be the one's "punished," especially as those who are responsible aren't. So in other words, your views seem to be based on changes that you think should be made, while my views are based on the way things are.

[eyeball]

Yes.

Yes because he was fifteen? Do you know at what age his abuse started or does it even matter?

A terrorist is a terrorist as much as a proof is a proof.

The proper humane way to look at it is that a terrorized person is a terrorised person, whether they are a human being on the top floors of the WTC or in a torture chamber. So what does that make the person who is doing the terrorising?

Let's call a spade a spade. If Muslims are welcome in the West why aren't we welcome in the Muslim world?

I suspect it might have something to do with our poor ability to differentiate between a spade and a shovel's use or how so many of us often confuse a pot and kettle's colour, or color as you'd probably be quick to argue.

Edited November 23, 2009 by eyeball

[Radsickle]

The government, if it's paying attention at all, does have evidence. That's my point. I think it's wrong and upsetting that nothing is being done.

...

I'm sure there are many Canadians who are upset that the government hasn't acted.

If there are "many Canadians who are upset", they haven't been very vocal over these last 7 years.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963

There are far too many Canadians who don't care about Justice for Omar. It's almost like the Germans who lived beside the concentration camps but didn't pay no mind because it wasn't them being gassed; too many complacent Canadians have half-consciously watched as Canada devolved into a torturing and child-abusing nation lately.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Radsickle