Costello has it absolutely correct. Not just Muslims should be targeted though--there are many groups migrating around the world that expect the country they immigrate to to bow down and allow them to live the way they did in thi=eir former land. Canada has been a 'leader' in this mentality--a sad fact that has done nothing more than change Canada into a non-country without a culture. We have been so socially engineered to bow down before other cultures etc. that we have lost sight of who we are. Wish Costello was a Canadian--wish there was a Canadian who had the courage to face down the politically correct crap we have been force fed over the last decade. Bravo Mr. Costello

I agree that there are practices incompatible with liberal democratic traditions. These include the unthinking patriotic nationalism fostered by political leaders like John Howard of Australia, who has also shown neglect for the UN Charter, international humanitarian law, the Geneva conventions and rights of due process.

That's your opinion. If it is as bad as you claim and you were an Aussie, you would be in the Gulag. Well, are you (they)? Of course not. They get to gripe as long, loud and bitterly as they choose.

Leftists today believe if you do not share their opinion, you need shouted down, demonized and eventually, run out of the country, except if you're Musilm, then "please, how far and long do I bend over Ahmed?"

How's your Arabic, Stephen?

You say:

"If we tell our people they have no right to offend, we have to tell others they have no right to destroy us,"

Worded differently -"If we tell our people they have the right to offend, you have the right to destroy us."

But that's not right--the latter statement isn't logically equivalent to the former. Here's what an equivalent statement, worded differently would look like:

"If we tell others they have the right to destroy us, we can tell our people they have the right to offend."

Myron:
Thank you for the grammar lesson. However, I can't help but feel you missed the point.

'How's your Arabic, Stephen?'

Better than your logic, Doug. Thanks for asking.

By the way, where did the Gulags, demonization and being 'run of of the country' come from? I don't recall posting anything of the sort.

So then, how do you say:

"Oh Infidel, Stephen, bend over and pick up that pencil, in the name of Allah, until new camel comes home."

in Arabic?

or

"From now on, no more CBC, just Al Jezeerah"

or

"We're not burning Christians, homosexuals, communists, lesibians and other multi-culti-worhippers, it's just an alternative fuel source."

Well, here we have cowardly leftist appeasers like Paul Martin. In a statement issued January 11, 2006 to Muslims celebrating Eid Ul-Adha he proclaims, "Muslim values are Canadian values..." According to Martin these values that Muslims and Canadians apparently share are multiculturalism, freedom, tolerance and the equality of every person. If he wasn't the PM at the time and so serious, this would be laughable.

These leftist Canadian politicians are a danger to society because they're just so damn ignorant.

"In contrast, we have this troubling quote from Vatican Secretary of State,...Worded differently - "If we tell our people they have the right to offend, you have the right to destroy us."...If this is what the Vatican means by "taking a stand"

I don't think that's a fair or accurate comment. The title of the article you link to is "Vatican to Muslims: practice what you preach"; this seems very much in line with what Australia is asking, and not in contrast.

Yes, it's not the most strongly worded comment, but it's only one comment out of several in the article and isn't refelctive of the article itself nor the Vatican's overall response; maybe you just read it quickly?

As a conservative I've never been more impressed with the Vatican and I think a few more quotes from the article would be helpful in adding context:

"Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It's our duty to protect ourselves," Monsignor Velasio De Paolis, secretary of the Vatican's supreme court, thundered in the daily La Stampa. Jesus told his followers to "turn the other cheek" when struck.

"The West has had relations with the Arab countries for half a century, mostly for oil, and has not been able to get the slightest concession on human rights," he said.

Bishop Rino Fisichella, head of one of the Roman universities that train young priests from around the world, told Corriere della Sera the Vatican should speak out more.

"Let's drop this diplomatic silence," said the rector of the Pontifical Lateran University. "We should put pressure on international organizations to make the societies and states in majority Muslim countries face up to their responsibilities."
************************

The Pope is leading the way on this issue and Western Civilization should be bloody grateful to have a man of his intellect and character leading the fight.

Oops.

On reading Doug's witty riposte, I realize I've made a mistake.

My Arabic is not better than Doug's logic.

Rather, it would be more correct to say that my (non-existent) Arabic is better than better than Doug's (non-existent) logic, taste and sense of humour combined.

The point I feel compelling, is that any religion that follows the teachings of Christ (which includes the muslims who feel he is an important prophet)should stay out of politics. Jesus himself(and I am paraphrasing) told Pilate that his "Kingdom was no part of this world."
Interestingly, his first century followers took that to mean they wouldn't hold political office, nor would they take sides politically.

The other side of the coin is this meant they weren't popular with the Romans and ended up in the gladitorial games.

For all you avid Multicultists out there, I offer the wisdom of Philip K. Dick...

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Or loosely paraphrasing... If you don't get your head out your collective ass' before it's too late, you'll be stuck with the consequences. Two words... French toast.

Socialists/communists hate & loathe nationalism.

Nationalism is anathema to their "monstrous fiction" of "equality".

John Howard personifies the nationalism of Australia.

Go, John Howard. +

PART ONE OF this article (Vanguard N0.51)outlined five of Edmund Burke's ideas which are of relevance to nationalism.

These were: that man is tied to a family, locality and nation;

that society is organic rather than mechanistic;

that the past, present and future are linked;

that as a nation we must put our own people first;

and that equality, like most abstract doctrines, is "a monstrous fiction".

These points were all fundamental to Burke's world view. +
http://www.bigeye.com/burke2.htm

"who has also shown neglect for the UN Charter, international humanitarian law, the Geneva conventions and rights of due process"

Why bring Kofi "I lined my pockets with Oil Scam Money" Annan into this discussion.

this is about some common sense Aussie idea.

Aussie!Aussie!Aussie!...Oi!Oi!Oi! Gawd I love that country! Hearing from my friends down there, and from the time I've spent there, they are very much like we were... 30 yrs ago. Before the great Liberal "multi-cultural force-feeding".They aren't afraid of turning boatloads of illegal immigrants back to sea either. Can we clone Costello and install him here as Immigration MP? :)))

Maz2:

It would seem that the muslim nations are better at these precepts then we are.

Amen and Hallelujah, if I may use such exclusionary language.

Tolerance seems to have snuck onto the moral podium, masquerading as the ultimate societal value. But if I have to surrender MY rights so that you may exercise yours, we are no longer conversing in the realm of moral values. We are dealing instead with nothing more than accommodation or appeasement, a practical transaction perhaps, but utterly without moral overtones, in fact distinctly immoral if coercion or threats are involved. Tolerance is not a moral value.

"If you have a strong objection to those values, don't come here." Makes sense, Mr. Costello. "Surrender your culture and accept an inferior one in the name of tolerance" doesn't have the same appeal, does it? But who has the guts to call it inferior?

Gawd, it is so refreshing to hear from politicians like the Aussies who apparently haven't yet been gelded and transformed into Liberals.

Every visit I make to Australia feels like I'm stepping back into the Canada that used to be, before our country was overtaken by a seemingly unending chorus of politically correct whiners seeking more and more from the state instead of getting off their collectivist asses and actually creating something. And, all the while, bleating incessantly about those bad old Americans.

And as for the UN charter Stephen, you can just stick that up your...oops, better not, our health care system sucks. Man, that charter sure worked in Rwanda, or Zimbabwe, or Bosnia, didn't it?

And as for "international humanitarian law", is that the same law promoted in the aforesaid countries, or Saddam's Iraq, or Iran? If so, the success was breath-taking, wasn't it?

Maz2: "...that as a nation we must put our own people first;"

Somewhere along the line, the "natural governing party" missed this point. As time ticks by, we seem to be powerless to stop the wholesale dismissal of our heritage and our culture... just to appease new arrivals. There is nothing wrong with absorbing positive elements of other cultures, but NOT at the expense of our own. Now with a shortage of skilled labour, we face the prospect of wholesale immigration. Not a bad thing if it's done right. What I am afraid of is the govt's "lowering the bar" just to get people here. Their track record over the last 20-30 yrs hasn't exactly been stelllar. Seems they've missed the point of "...that as a nation we must put our own people first;"! Thanks for that Maz!
Cheers

The President of the Christian Association in Nigeria issued the following statement:

a. From all indications, it is very clear now that the sacrifices of the Christians in this country for peaceful co-existence with people of other faiths has been sadly misunderstood to be weakness

b. We have for a long time now watched helplessly the killing, maiming and destruction of Christians and their property by Muslim fanatics and fundamentalists at the slightest or no provocation at all. We are not unaware of the fact that these religious extremists have the full backup and support of some influential Muslims who are yet to appreciate the value of peaceful co-existence.
c. That an incident in far away Denmark which does not claim to be representing Christianity could elicit such an unfortunate reaction here in Nigeria, leading to the destruction of Christian Churches, is not only embarrassing, but also disturbing and unfortunate.
d. It is no longer a hidden fact that a long standing agenda to make this Nigeria an Islamic nation is being surreptitiously pursued. The willingness of Muslim Youth to descend with violence on the innocent Christians from time to time is from all intents and purposes a design to actualize their dream.

2) a. It is sad to note that all acts of hostility meted against Christians by Muslims in the past have remained unaddressed with nobody paying compensations or the culprits brought to justice.

b. We do appreciate the fact that at this stage of our national development, peace is absolutely necessary for realizing our dreams and aspirations. It is in view of this that Christians in Nigeria agreed to participate in the forthcoming National Census as sacrifice for the peace and progress of this nation, in spite of our protest over the non-inclusion of Religion and Ethnicity as necessary demographic data.

c. May we at this stage remind our Muslim brothers that they do not have the monopoly of violence in this nation. Nigeria belongs to all of us – Christians, Muslims and members of other faiths. No amount of intimidation can Change this time-honoured arrangement in this nation. C.A.N. may no longer be able to contain our restive youths should this ugly trend continue.

Good one, Kate, especially the "means more pavillions at Folkfest".

"Before becoming an Australian you will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong objection to those values, don't come to Australia."

Right on.

The point missed by the multi-culti leftists brainwashed by their own tyrannical pc rules. They've failed to notice, because of their own superficiality, that superficial immigrants refusing to participate in a secular democratic society are their undoing.

If you resist our culture, democratic politics and cherished love of free speech, then you need to leave NOW. If an economic motive is your only reason for living among us, then you need to leave NOW. If the Imam rather than the ballot box is the force governing your civil obedience, you need to have left YESTERDAY.

The immigrants of my grandfather's era embraced America's values and opportunities. The Dems/Libs game of hyphenated Americans/Canadians is the underpinning of this folly. You no longer need to assimilate is the message.

The craven leftist elites on campuses and in the media immediately after 9/11 sneered at the proliferation of US flags.

The WOT is two front - the jihadists and their useful idiots on the Left.

Snookie:

Lowering the bar? We have immigrants with PHD's driving taxis, when we need doctors. Maybe we should lower the the down to MA's and BA's

Kate, you're misinterpreting the cardinal. Here's how I read it:

"Before we tell our people to stop offending, tell your people to stop killing."

Neo: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

I'd have thought that warning ought to have been heeded less by 'multicultists,' as you term them, and more by those who argued Iraq's invaders would be welcomed as liberators and would need only a couple of billion to do the job.

maz2: "equality, like most abstract doctrines, is "a monstrous fiction."

Burke is thoughtlessly quoted by many. How about this 'monstrous fiction,' from this morning's speech by President Bush: 'we're advancing our security at home by advancing the cause of
freedom across the world.'

Fred: "Why bring Kofi "I lined my pockets with Oil Scam Money" Annan into this discussion."

In case you didn't notice, that was you bringing Kofi Annann into the discussion.

I love Kate (well, I dont know Kate at all, but I love her writings), but she obviously hasnt taken first year logic.

Her evaluation of the Cardinals comment is a well known logical error: denying the antecedent .

Stephen . . good luck with life, reality for you & your fuzzy wuzzy brain ilk is going to be a bitch.

Friday . . was the day to shoot the women in the soccer field . . back of the head with the trusty '47

Thursday was for stoning homosexuals in the main square

Saturdays, well that was just for killing anyone the mullahs didn't fancy that week & had "fatwa'd"

When the come for you, don't expect us to help.

Bye now.

Dude:
I respectfully disagree. While very close, the wikipedia used the term antecedant. This does not cover. Having said that, I'm willing to give leeway that Kate is not to the statement; where English might be the second language. Previous post, Christianity should stay out of politics.

Stephen, why don't you go to Bagdad and give all of the Iraqi's a great big hug, I'm sure that'll solve all of their problems. Been living on the dark side of the moon with your tin foil hat on, eh Stephen?

Mark F: "...Lowering the bar? We have immigrants with PHD's driving taxis, when we need doctors. Maybe we should lower the the down to MA's and BA's"

Maybe you haven't heard Mark, they are going to import about 36,000 truck drivers from Asia in the next while, just to fill those gaps, never mind other professions. In the rush to fill the vancancies, I hope they DON'T lower the bar any more than it is. We have 36,000 "undesirables" loose in this country they can't find... because they don't deport people here like other countries. We ask them to leave?! By a certain date?! And let's not forget those 600+ people on a freighter they brought in, and made to "promise" to appear before the court in 2 weeks. Only about HALF showed up!! OK... so who ARE these people that are running loose in this country? Pretty shoddy immigration policy if you ask me. It WOULDN'T happen like that in Australia I can guarantee you!

Stephen(possibly "from bc"?) - Yawn.

I'd have thought that warning ought to have been heeded less by 'multicultists,' as you term them, and more by those who argued Iraq's invaders would be welcomed as liberators and would need only a couple of billion to do the job.

68% turnout in the Iraqi election, better then most elections in democratic countries, THE IRAQIS GOT IT, DUMBASS. The multi-culti's didn't.

Are you so idiotically uninformed you still don't get who the insurgents are? Hint. They aren't Iraqis. Do facts ever penetrate your thick skull? The mosque destroyed. Hint: Iran.

Changing your uninformed and illogical content is a better gambit then your troll name change tactic.

Alberta's 'Contribution' to the WOT

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=cb4b4d88-8d9d-4c37-bbe2-fead93f9a30b&k=91491

Of course... we can be comforted in know ing that these new truck drivers being imported in the next while WILL have the ability to drive. The question is... can they drive properly? No worries tho, if they don't speak english an interpreter can and WILL be provided to pass the driving exam, as is now the law. Perhaps they can drive well in their own country... I just wonder how they compare to the industry here. I face numerous drivers every shift in the Fraser canyon. Both native-born Canadians and immigrants. There are some on both sides that shouldn't be allowed to drive cars, never mind screaming down the road sitting on 136,000 lbs! I've dodged stuff falling off loads, drivers who think the centre-line is a decoration, and equipment that Stelco wouldn't even take for scrap! Yeah, so I hope they don't lower the bar, just to fill those jobs. I've managed to stay alive for the last 1.5 million professional miles with only one minor mishap, caused by someone who couldn't keep to their side. You might wanna think about that next time you see a fully loaded truck ripping thru the mountains at 115 km/h.

Kate for President or should I say PM!

"Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It's our duty to protect ourselves," Monsignor Velasio De Paolis, secretary of the Vatican's supreme court, thundered in the daily La Stampa. Jesus told his followers to "turn the other cheek" when struck.

Jesus didn't say to turn the other cheek in all situations. Only when met with violence while teaching.

Self-defense has always been a Christian precept. As evidenced by Peter cutting off the ear of priest's servant, does anyone think Peter was wearing a sword just for show? John 18:10.

Stephen:

>>and more by those who argued Iraq's invaders would be welcomed as liberators and would need only a couple of billion to do the job.

Can you point me to somewhere that someone said either of these things? A link, maybe?

Peter MacKay should read Costello's speech and take notes.

I read the Cardinal's statement as being weak... in the face of troubling developments in the ME... can you imagine if a left leaning Pope was in the big chair?
Of course the Vatican doesn't have much in the way of a "conventional" army.... but the ability to sway so many shouldn't be underestimated.
I do think the current Pope knows what it is to live under tyrants, as JP2 did.

I think Mr. Costello has it correct.... immigrants should check their intolerance at the gates, and not fester hatred from within.

remember Toursim BC's slogan, "Beautiful BC"
The new one from Tourism Australia is.... "So where the bloody hell are you"? (I'm serious.)
I'm liking Australia more and more....
www.theage.com

Me too marc... been toying with the idea of immigrating there for the last yr or so. Time will tell how it works out.

You might wanna think about that next time you see a fully loaded truck ripping thru the mountains at 115 km/h.

Or with Mexican plates heading up I25 in the US.

Anyone really think that they have the same checks on truck road worthiness? Want to trust brake systems safety compliances in Mexico?

ol hoss - Jesus was no fool. He was as good at political instructiveness - "render unto Caesar...." - as he was religiously instructive.

ol hoss - have you seen Walter Wink's interpretation of "turning the other cheek"? According to him, it wasn't an act of meek submission - far from it. In fact it was an ingenious act of defiance that exposed the brutality of the one with the fist, for all to see and condemn.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1216-30.htm

If the Cardinal's words are really meant the way Norman reads them -
"Before we tell our people to stop offending, tell your people to stop killing"
- then I think the Cardinal is getting closer to what Jesus was talking about.

Stephen-

Yes, President Bush is completely right; he IS advancing the security of the US by advancing freedom and democracy around the world.

As for your strange comment about the practices that are incompatible with the liberal democratic traditions - those most certainly are the ones carried out within the Islamic countries - who have all shown complete neglect for the UN Charter, an utter disregard for international humanitarian laws, for the Geneva Convention and the rights of due process. I assume you are aware of these problems in the Islamic countries???.

I fully agree with Kate- in Canada, multiculturalism has been thought of as referring to 'food, drink, dress and dance', ie, to cultural aspects. But, the ambiguity of its definition, aligned with the relativist lack of ethics of postmodernism, has led to more and more 'distinct groups' in Canada claiming 'special rights'.

Different religions, backgrounds etc - can only operate within a democratic society, on the cultural level. There can only be ONE legal system - and the Islamic attempt to insert THEIR legal system of Sharia, is wrong. There can only be one political system - and that means that men and women are politically and economically equal.

And so on..so, the Australians have it 'spot on'. They are a great open country - and Canada has lost that self-awareness and that tremendous clarity and courage that Australia has.

I hear ya Penny! Just because someone can aim and steer, doesn't mean they know how to operate the equipment safely.

Miss Piggy is jubilating; what a lady. Pork for allah. +

Cartoon-newspaper wins prize (Hip Hip Hooray!!)
News24 (South Africa) ^ | 24 February 2006 | News24

Posted on 02/24/2006 3:15:34 PM PST by Cornpone

Copenhagen - Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which angered the Muslim world by publishing cartoons of Prophet Muhammad last year, has won a Danish critical journalism award for its initiative, the jury said.

Denmark's largest daily was honoured with the Victor Prize for "having opened everyone's eyes by showing how easy it is to introduce cracks in freedom of expression and how so-called political correctness is infiltrating what we believe to be inalienable rights," Hans Engell, the editor of tabloid Ekstra Bladet which awards the prize, said during a prize ceremony in Copenhagen late on Thursday.

The Victor Prize, named for the late editor-in-chief of Ekstra Bladet Victor Andreasen, was handed to Jyllands-Posten's editor Carsten Juste.

"This prize is awarded to Jyllands-Posten for its adamant defence for months of freedom of expression, which is under threat," Engell told AFP.

Freedom of expression

"Jyllands-Posten only did its duty: exercise its right to freedom of expression," he added.

Juste, guarded by two secret service bodyguards, noted "how fragile freedom of expression is" as he accepted the award, his newspaper reported.

The 12 drawings of Muhammad, which first appeared in Jyllands-Posten last September, have sparked violent protests in Muslim countries against Denmark especially, as well as against other European countries where the cartoons have since been reprinted.

Islam considers any image of the prophet blasphemous.

Both the newspaper and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen have repeatedly refused to apologize for the publication of the cartoons, insisting that freedom of expression is a fundamental right in Denmark. +
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1585062/posts

Any comments on what would happen if the next Canadian Federal election was fought over a "rights for the majority" platform?

A lot of people have missed the point.

In a liberal democracy, no one has the authority to tell others "they do not have a right to offend".

Full stop.

There is no capacity to lay any such concept on the table for the purpose of negotiation - unless you are willing to forfeit democracy itself as the price for non-violence.

Thus, the Cardinal's statement was a concession that offended Muslims set the terms under which he would negotiate away our democratic freedoms. That's not reciprocity - it's submission.

It's interesting to see the comments about moving to Australia. There's a family story about how my grandfather chose Canada instead of Australia back in 1906. And just today, for reasons mentioned on this thread, I thought, hey, what if it had been Australia...
Of course, the poll that mentioned the majority of Canadians didn't thing we should help in Afstan didn't help.

Interesting idea Martin B. I'd love to see it here, but I fear that the majority have been so brain-washed that it'd be "politically incorrect", you see.

ol hoss - have you seen Walter Wink's interpretation of "turning the other cheek"?

I really don't agree with his interpretation. The command to turn the other cheek was in relation to teaching the Gospel. That's the subject of the foregoing scripture.

The "evil" spoken of in Matt. 5:39 is poneros, and simply means "hurtful" and does not refer to essential charactor or degeneracy.

Christians are also to obey civil law in the country in which they reside (Romans 13). That's the context of "render unto Caesar...", in which the ruling country was heathen.

That certainly doesn't preclude Christians from taking a part in the politics (policies) of a Christian country.

I re-read that cardinals statement a couple times, just to be sure it said wot it said. All I can say is....LUDICROUS! Someone check his party membership! I seriously hope he's NOT involved with this country in any meaningful political capacity. Why not just kneel and offer the head now. Sheesh! Our boys that never came back would be bloody livid.

martin...

unfortunately the candian charter of rights sanctioned the right of the minority and NOT the rghts of the majority. hence the problems we are faced with today. there can be no canadian "identity" under our present charter. what exactly is a canadian in todays world ?

mark f...
"Lowering the bar? We have immigrants with PHD's driving taxis, when we need doctors. Maybe we should lower the the down to MA's and BA's"

I hear you mark... but this is a very intricate subject...we have to make sure we don't lower the bar too much, especially when dealing with the medical profession.
Sure, maybe... just maybe, it is difficult for a foriegn trained physician to obtain a their license to practice in canada. But what is the reason? is it because they can't afford to pay for an accreditation exam, an exam that tests the basic knowledge of a doctor to ensure that they can practice medicine at certain standards equivelent to the average graduate from an accreditted north american medical college? Or is it simply that they have taken the exam failed, taken it again and failed and can no longer afford the thousands of dollars it costs to take the exam and have given up and decided to drive a taxi.

the only reason i raise this point is because i am a veterinarian. sure i am not a human doctor but i am a doctor none the less. While in my last year of training at a Canadian veterinary college, (a veterinary college that holds accreditation, meaning that my degree in veterinary medicine is recognized as legit in all of north america and probably many european countries), I had a sneek peak at foreign trained veterinarians that were in the middle of taking a very stressful exam called "Part C". bassically an exam that tests proficiancy and general knowledge in veterinary medicine designed to ensure that: "the candidate qualifies at least as well as the worst graduating student from our college" (as one of my profs put it) The failure rate was quite high (probably over 50%) many of the candidates had never even handled, let alone operated on a dog, cat, cow, or horse (take you pick) before. some of them had never used gas anesthesia or anylized a radiograph. For some of the ones that failed, this wasn't even their first time ponying up the thousands of dollars it costs to take the exam. They had already taken it and failed before. upon actually talking to them though it was quite apparent that they were very intelligent people it was just a fact that they lacked the knowledge and experience that one would be exposed to in a north american college.
If they can't perform to our minimum expectations as a profesional in the medical field then sorry they shouldn't be granted a license to practice in our country.
I feel exaclty the same way if this is the reason a doctor from another country is driving a cab in toronto or vancouver.

however if it is strictly that they can't afford to pony up the cash to take the exam to prove they are just as qualified as a north american doctor then sure maybe the government should pony up for some of the cash for them to take the exam. but somehow i feel this isnt the case.

evan

In a liberal democracy, no one has the authority to tell others "they do not have a right to offend".

The reverse is also true, no one has the authority to tell others they have an obligation to offend.

The cardinal's statement might not be so surprising. Wasn't there something a couple yrs ago, about the Vatican and Pope Pius working with the Nazis? Funneling money ,turning a blind eye to certain things or some such? Just curious.

I suppose the message intent could have bean worded better.

No one has the authority to tell others their right to offend equals an obligation to offend.

"bean" - heh, must have been thinking leftist flatulance.

LOL Hoss. I wonder if the Pope backs Sodano's statement, or was he just stating his own personal opinion. They don't usually seem to have "foot-in-mouth" disease over there. What have the faithful said about this stand, anything? Does the flock feel fleeced? Errr.... sorry, couldn't resist. :-P

Hoss.... if you want leftist flatulence, have a read of, uugghhh, "the tyee" and its blog. You can't comment unless you are a member. Oh, he's a "member" alright!

What bothers me is that anyone from anywhere can come to Canada and immediately refer to themeselves as Canadian, regardless of the language they speak or their values, morals and mores.

I am a 7th generation Canadian. Frankly I think that makes me more of a Canadian than someone who just moved here.

Canada may have multicultural roots but that in no way means that new immigrants should not assimilate.

Unassimilating multiculturalism is diluting existing Canadian culture.

Immigrants that arrive with strong cultural traditions and beliefs have those beliefs because the came from non-multicultural societies.

I personally feel Canadians do have a uniqueness in this world that is unto itself, and not the anti American definition that the Liberal left seems to adhere to.

Nothing makes me sicker than seeing the "Canadian" description given to terrorists like the Khadrs simply because they live here. There is nothing Canadian about them other than their address.

I have always liked Aussies ... now i like them more.

Snookie smeared: "Wasn't there something a couple yrs ago, about the Vatican and Pope Pius working with the Nazis? Funneling money ,turning a blind eye to certain things or some such? Just curious."

Snookie, didn't I read something about you being a child molestor? Not paying your taxes, and being a Neo-Nazi? Just curious.

A parable, of sorts:

An Arab muslim is walking in the desert and notes an object embedded in the sand. Picking it up, he discovers that it is a lamp. As he rubs the dust away, a genie appears. The genie says "In gratitude for you freeing me from the lamp, I grant you one wish...wealth, fame, beautiful women, whatever you want, but only one wish".

The muslim thinks for a moment and says "My neighbour has a goat that is better than mine...make it die."

That, folks, goes a long way to explain the mindset of these fundamentalist Islamist assholes.

ward,

"I am a 7th generation Canadian. Frankly I think that makes me more of a Canadian than someone who just moved here."

So 7th is better than 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 1st and new. Is 8th more Canadian than you?

Anonalogue: "...Snookie, didn't I read something about you being a child molestor? Not paying your taxes, and being a Neo-Nazi? Just curious."

You certainly might have, Anon. But if you did it wasn't on a credible MSM outlet. I raised the issue because the Pope and the Vatican were implicated in a dirty deal involving the millions stolen from the Jews by the Nazis in WWII and banked by the Swiss. It was also stated the Vatican refused to help the Allied cause. So yes I am curious, would be nice to know if it was true.If you feel I've "smeared" Christianity, that is your right. Unlike your "mentioning" me as a child molester, my query was based on some somewhat dodgy actual events.

Anonaloque
that certainly wasn't a fair statement on your part. I suggest you do some reading on the subject before you say something as disasterous as you just did.The fact of the matter is Pius XXII did not do all he could have done knowing about the holocaust,had Hitlers ear,and his riches were protected by German paratroopers as one of the last defended areas in Rome as the allies entered the city.There are many arguements that can be made for and against this subject/man,however i feel you do a diservice to this person by attacking him in this manner..

Evan:

Sorry for the delay in replying and thank you for the information. I wonder then why immigration isn't on the bit. They are actively recruiting many of these people. It seems the left hand needs to coordinate with the right hand.

Even I'm not goin' there ('ere!!). Not worth it... I've seen better discussion than this one....later folks!!

Ural rather a subjective question, but I understand the point you are trying to make. (Tell me though is Omar Khadr more Canadian, less Canadian or the same as someone like me?)

If it were possible and I were to move to Iran tomorrow, and become a citizen would that automatically make me an Iranian? Somehow I think that were I to do that and change nothing about myself that Iranians would likely disagree. And were I to immerse myself in the culture learn the language, and become a muslim, I still doubt that Iranians would consider me Iranian.

I think the same would hold true about Iraq, Finland, Denmark, Brazil etc etc. And there would be nothing wrong with that.

Being recognized as a Canadian in the world still carries some sway, though less so each year. Much of it comes from the respect that a bunch of farm kids from accross Canada earned in battle, and, as a nation, from standing on the right side of history for the better part of the century.

If anyone can be Canadian then there is no such thing as Canadian. Since I am one and know I exist, I would rather not see my cultural heritage diminished by someone applying the description to anyone and everyone regardless of their cultural background.

"... credible MSM outlet"

Hahaha, oxymoron of the day.

"If you feel I've "smeared" Christianity, that is your right."

First, I'd like to point out you sound really, really catty and sleazy; men of honour don't talk the way you talk. A small child could deduce the intent of your comment was to smear, don't pretend otherwise. Your weak explanation, while possible, is not plausible.

What, besides venting, are you all prepared to do about the maintenance of a Canadian culture and way of life? Yes multiculturalism will lead to the Balkanisation of Canada. Yes it denies the existence of a Canadian culture in the face of the desire of most Canadians of all origins to unite in their Canadian culture. Yes, high levels of immigration from a few origins is the life blood of this division of Canada by race and ethnicity. Yes! But what are you prepared to do about it?

I would be prepared to organize a group of "ethnic Canadians" of all origins and races. People who want to defend Canadian culture, and who want to identify as Canadian, period. This group should be funded or not funded by government in the same way that other ethnic and cultural groups are. This group, call it the True North or the Canadian Cultural Congress or whatever, would speak up to defend Canadian culture, not museums or obscure art groups, but the mainstream culture's right to defend its space in its only homeland. No need to define that culture. Perhaps it is a mix of landscape, history, institutions and a desire to exist. That is enough of a definition. Not as powerful as ancient civilizations, but good enough for me.

So who is prepared to do something? Send me an email.steve@thelinguist.com

Kursk, thank you for confirming that info. It's nice to know I wasn't just imagining it, or misunderstanding what I heard that day. I'm sure John Paul II would NOT have chosen the policy Pius XXII did, but would have stood his ground as best he was able. All this makes me wonder about the present Pope's policy based on Sodano's statement. Will he be like Pius XXII,kneel and offer his neck to Islam? or will he "hold the line"?

First point: as Vatican correspondent John L. Allen Jr. wrote:

When a Vatican official speaks, how do you know if he's speaking for the Vatican?

To the uninitiated, this might appear a silly question, on the order of "Who's buried in Grant's tomb?" To most people, it seems obvious that if a Vatican official speaks on an issue of interest to the Catholic church, he is doing so on behalf of the Vatican. This is, in fact, how such comments are routinely reported in the press: "The Vatican today said …"

In fact, however, things are not nearly so simple.

Almost every diplomat and journalist has had the experience of asking for clarification after a Vatican official has given an interview or made a speech in which he said something explosive. Routinely, the reply is that this official was not speaking on behalf of the Holy See, but was merely expressing a "personal opinion."

Read the rest here.

Second point: Cardinal Sodano is addressing Catholics ("our people"), not liberal democracy at large, in the first part of the quoted sentence. And I would caution that it might be stretching things a bit to extrapolate an entire policy position from one sentence.

Third point: I don't think anyone need fear imminent dhimmitude under Benedict XVI's watch:

Ratzinger criticises Islam for mixing politics, religion

James Schall on same:

Finally, Ratzinger comes to what he considers the West’s almost pathological hatred of itself. At a very time when everyone tries to be accommodating to any other values in other cultures, no matter how outlandish, Europe finds its own values “despicable.” “Europe, to survive, has need of new thought, certainly critical and humble, that can accept itself if it wishes to survive.” What does it mean to love and be open to everyone but oneself? This irony involves recognizing that we are worthy of something. This recognition requires a sense of the sacred. For this purpose, God cannot be a complete stranger to Europeans themselves.

Time weighs in on Benedict and Islamic extremism:

And as long ago as 1997, he wasn't particularly optimistic: Islam features "a very marked subordination of woman to man," he says in his interview book Salt of the Earth. Islam "simply does not have the separation of the political and religious sphere that Christianity has had from the beginning." Just a few months before being elected Pope, he spoke out against predominantly-Muslim Turkey's candidacy to join the European Union, insisting that Europe is defined by Christian values. His views of religious fundamentalism, regardless of the faith, are also worthy of note. Faith "was intended precisely for the simple," he says in Salt of the Earth, but "the quest for certainty and simplicity becomes dangerous when it leads to fanaticism and narrow-mindedness. When reason as such becomes suspect, then faith itself becomes falsified."

Snookie's question of Pius XXII and the Nazis - start here.

And finally, for those who say that religion has no place in politics, here's what then-Cardinal Ratzinger had to say in the book referenced above:

The state denies that it has a religious foundation and affirms that it is based on reason and rational knowledge. Since reason is inherently fragile, however, these secular systems have proved to be weak, becoming easy targets for dictatorships. They survive only because elements of the old moral conscience have persevered, even without the earlier foundations, enabling the existence of a basic moral consensus.

This stuff just can't be reduced to soundbites, Cardinal-breathed or not.

I think i just about gagged the day ex-pmpm declared that muslim values were Canadian values.Yes,how fondly i remembered the times beheading people and burning down embassies when people offended me.

The days of people attempting to eschew our western culture in support of one based on moral equivalency are fast ending.There is nothing like being taken to the woodshed a few times to induce some clarity in otherwise straight thinking people.

Wake up people,we are in a war we will not win if we give away what we hold most dear.Any sign of dissent is taken by Islamists for weakness.How does it feel Canada? you and i are in a global conflict that is now at our doorstep.If you don't stand for the little things,when the bigger crisis hits you will be mentally unprepared.

It is your choice...

what exactly is a canadian in todays world ?

Hmm Spike I'd sure like to know, some of my family immigrated here almost 400 years ago, another side 100 years ago, another side goes back to the last ice age on this continent... and yet the past liberal government calls my child 'illegitimate' because I wasn't married, of course at the same time asking me for more proof of her birth and charged more for her passport.

Unmarried relatives of ours living in Europe, at the same time, received a passport for their child born in Europe with no questions asked and no lengthy delay of months nor the 'extra proof' with paperwork and additional costs... just another cash grab served up the liberal way, nothing new.

Thing that frosts me is, I've never been in trouble with the law, nor the father of this child, both of us are at least college educated, always worked, paid taxes, own property and vote.... and also unlike the Khadrs and other immigrants who break the law, we still wait for medical services.

and URAL, for some of us, our forefathers died for this country's idea of joining the fight for freedom and liberty from tyranny in WWII. Anyone who is new is indebted to the host country, don't you think?

So am I to feel badly that many generations of my family help build, pay and die for this country, and yet a new immigrant has more rights and gets better government services than a natural Canadian? Or that our representative voice is ignored in government? We keep saying that we have no culture but as soon as a natural Canadian speaks up about our own history, we get accused of being racist, as somehow it always offends somebody new....

Linda... thank you for the link! :)))

I think one of the problems facing pope Benedict is the fact that if he speaks out on Muslim outrages,he will be seen as the voice of all Christendom,and not a man with his own opinion. I have read there is much debate in the higher eschelons of the catholic church on wether any statements could be construed as provocative,and could incite more violence and more deaths of christians (espc.in areas of the world where they are in the minority)

"... the Cardinal's statement was a concession that offended Muslims set the terms under which he would negotiate away our democratic freedoms. That's not reciprocity - it's submission."
The Cardinal is not in a position to negotiate anything, and the Vatican is not a liberal "democracy". I think he was not speaking of rights in a legalistic sense, but rather in terms of ethical behavior.
Perhaps he might have chosen his words more carefully.
A better paraphrase would be: "If you don't want to be offended, don't behave offensively."
As for Pius XII, Snookie and kursk should remember that John Paul II did everything he could to have him canonized. Maybe he knew something about him.

Anonalogue.... while your posts usually add something to intelligent discussion and debate, these last few from you seem lacking. Even when faced with the possibility you misspoke against me, you danced around it, choosing to further make your point with derision.... instead of learning something about history, and adding to the discourse. Remember what you wrote when you look in the mirror.
Cheers.

Ramon... good point. I believe there is a split in the controversy of Pius XII, one side for, one against. I have no doubt he had a difficult position at that time. Could he have done better? Possibly. He could certainly have done far worse. Not a position I'd want to be in for sure. Thanks to some knowledgable people here, I've learned more about that time and that pope. Thanks Kursk and Linda. Cheers.

Snookums: "Anonalogue.... while your posts usually add something to intelligent discussion and debate,"

Yes, I do have a history of consistently adding something intelligent to discussion and debate, 600+ posts on my blog and several times that amount in comments attest to this. Which is all the more reason why you should listen to me, my never before seen or noticed friend, when I tell you that you were out of line in gratuitously smearing the church.

The thing is, every time there's an online discussion and the Catholic church gets mentioned some clown - like you - shows up and gets his rocks off by piping up with oh-so-clever insights such as: "Hey, didn't the Catholic Church and some Catholics, like, do some bad stuff?" It's childish, trite, catty, petty, etc. The anti-Catholic internet troll schtick is weak; don't get all sucky with me for calling you out on it, just try to be better.

Poll in Sydney Morning Hearld 75% in favor of Costello's remark.

Anonalogue... let's clear a few things up.

1. Just because you've posted 600+ on YOUR blog, and several times that elsewhere including here doesn't make you any more intelligent than anyone else, it just means you have alot of opinions and posts.
2. I asked a question, based on history and a divided debate in the church, about a possible parallel situation presently, which does involve allegations. Having only the one side, I asked for, and got more info presenting the other side to the story. Thank you Linda!
3.I'm not your friend.
4.You seem to be the only Catholic whom is bent about my asking for clarification.
5.At no time did I make a personal attack toward you, or resort to name-calling."It's childish, trite, catty, petty, etc."
6.Who is anti-catholic?? I was baptised RC, went to a Catholic school for a few yrs, and still have a majority of my family as practicing Catholics.... so "Rak Off"!
7. You obviously confuse "civility" with "submission". Big difference.
8. Just because YOU see things in a certain light, doesn't mean that's they way they are. Looking down your nose at someone while saying "how it is" just makes you sound like a pompous ass.
However, that said, I still think you add intelligence and insight to discourse and debate.
Cheers

WC: "Poll in Sydney Morning Hearld 75% in favor of Costello's remark."

My friends in Aus say thats about right. They all feel that way.

Ward- "I am a 7th generation Canadian. Frankly I think that makes me more of a Canadian than someone who just moved here."

I got this a lot growing up in Toronto in the 70s I met a lot of kids who had a similar attitude to yourself. They usually expressed it by gathering into groups of 4-8, finding an immigrant kid and beating the snot out of him.

We responded by forming our own gang and defending ourself. The funny thing was the racist Canadians never did like facing us off in anything approaching equal numbers.

However I've matured in my thinking since then and I've got a suggestion. How about we make 7th generation Canadians 100% Canadians. We first generations can be considered only 15% Canadian. Taxation levels can be adjusted accordingly.

Kursk "I think one of the problems facing pope Benedict is the fact that if he speaks out on Muslim outrages,he will be seen as the voice of all Christendom,and not a man with his own opinion."

Well the Pope doesn't represent himself as just an ordinary guy who happens to own an extraordinary hat collection.

...How about we make 7th generation Canadians 100% Canadians. We first generations can be considered only 15% Canadian. Taxation levels can be adjusted accordingly...

Instead, how about revising the rules pertaining to dual-citizenship and if after x number of years/decades if you haven't lived, worked or paid Canadian taxes, essentially you've contributed zilch to the Canadian economy, that you're no longer considered a Canadian.

Snookie - you're welcome!

"Snookie" said: "Linda... thank you for the link! :)))" (notice extremely gay smiley face)

Ah, I see what the problem is: Snookie a homosexual! And we know Canadian homosexuals hhhhhhhhhhhatte the Catholic church with a searing intensity. Busted!

With the possible exception of being sodomized in a Burmese f**k swing whilst wearing hot pink leather fringed assless chaps there's nothing a Canadian homosexual loves more than getting on the internet and firing up some good hate and nasty talk about the Catholic church. We see it all the time. It's their way of "getting back" at the world.

I suppose it is somewhat understandable, but in the context of world religions Catholicism is one of the more tolerant ones toward gays. At any rate, the intesity of the hatred homosexuals have toward the church needs to be "addressed", vigorously. I've just seen way, way too much hate from the gays, to the point where I'm starting to question whether homosexuals are inherently evil. Deception seems to be a chronic issue.

Now, listen closely, my homosexual little friend: when they come for you - they always have, and they always will - I and many others will not speak up for you.

For the record Jose I have never been in a gang, but good to know that you have. But I am glad that you brought up the gang issue since it has exploded since the 70's.

I live in Vancouver, and almost without exception swarming beatings are the domain of immigrant youths and they are either random or drawn along racial lines.

The drug trade, killings and violence predominantly involve Indo Canadians.

What excuse do they have. Can you name me a less racist more generous country than Canada Jose?

Well, here we go again...anytime anonalogue is faced with an issue that exceeds his intellectual capacity to address, he resorts to the...YOU'RE GAY gambit...

Frankly, Anon, you have got to shake off those self-loathing tendencies and begin to address your own doubts about your sexuality...

An excellent review in the Globe's "Books": "The battle for the soul of Islam", by Emran Qureshi, of
"The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists", by Khaled Abou El Fadl:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060225.BKISLA25/TPStory/?query=

Excerpts:
...
'Khaled Abou El Fadl is a professor of law at UCLA, trained in both Western and Islamic legal traditions. He is a believing Muslim. A graduate of Yale and Princeton, he is fluent in English, French, Arabic, Ottoman Turkish, Hebrew, Persian, Latin and Syriac. In The Great Theft, he attempts to inform Muslims of a grave threat to Islam's moral centre and to wrest control of the discourse on defining what being a Muslim is in the modern world away from the extremists...

Abou El Fadl traces the rise of Islamic extremism to the rise of the Wahhabi state, the precursor of modern Saudi Arabia. By now it has become something of a cliché, but here the author's original contribution is actually to explore the ideas of the sect's founder, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab through his writings, and the dislocations they produced. He calls Wahhabis "puritans" and demarcates their ethos and underlying world view from the moderate centre of Islam. Some critics may consider this to be too reductive. But one needs to ask: Has this interpretation of Islam influenced modern Muslim understanding of their faith, and if so, how?

In his teachings, ibn Abd al-Wahhab emphasized a puritanical, punitive and literalist interpretation of Islam. He argued that Muslims had gone astray from the one true Islam. He thus sought to rid Islam of those "corruptions" that had crept into it: mysticism, rationalism, Shiite theology and, essentially, all theological innovations other than those he preferred. In essence, he was waging war against Islamic tradition itself. His Islam is a closed, supremacist, metaphysical system...

The diffusion of Wahhabi ideology began aggressively in the 1970s, in the turmoil that followed the Iranian revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan...

The author is greatly concerned about the present moment. The moderate centre that would deflect the radicals has, in his estimation, all but collapsed. At one time, it was Islamic jurists who performed that function; their moral authority has greatly diminished, largely because they have become functionaries of the state. Abou El Fadl fears that the puritans will be able to redefine Islam.

As well, many in the Muslim world perceive the war on terror as a war on Islam. Islamic radicals pose as defenders of Islam from the infidel, and thus draw from the bitter wellspring of Islam-West conflict for nourishment. It is thus not a moment that lends itself to critical introspection or soul searching...

Abou El Fadl suggests that the moderate voice of Islam has few champions within the diasporic Muslim population of the West (though this is perceptibly changing) or in the Muslim heartland. The puritans are well funded and entrenched...'

Mark
Ottawa

Here's a 'time-saver', since it's obvious where this is all heading. IRONY ALERT--no name calling please. I am VERY concerned about where this anti-muslim rhetoric is going. Peace.

________________________________________
Ten Responses to Muslim Sympathizers
by …………
________________________________________
There are still Muslim sympathizers today who attempt to disrupt our defense against the Muslim world rulers, trying to stop us or even cause us to fall. The following hints show how one can reply to these arguments by our opponents, or even turn their arguments against them.
Argument 1: "You say that religion is a private matter. But you fight against the religion of Islam!" Counterargument: "Actually, the religion of Islam is nothing other than a doctrine to destroy freedom-loving democracies."In resisting all government attempts to nationalize them, the Muslims build a state within the state. "To call this state a 'religion' was one of the cleverest tricks ever invented." "From this first lie that Islam is a religion, not a race, further lies inevitably follow."
Argument 2: "There are decent Muslims, after all!" — Counterargument: "This little phrase 'after all' proves that they are rare exceptions of no significance to our battle against Islam as a whole. If they do something good for you, it is not because they love you, but because they need room to live with us, so they have to do something. But their heart remains as I have said!"
Argument 3:

Argument 4: "There are also 'white Muslims' [i.e., Freedom-loving people who are as bad as Muslims]. — Counterargument: "That speaks against the Muslims, not for them! The fact that one calls the terrorists among us 'white Muslims' is proof that being a Muslim implies something bad. Otherwise, one would call crooked Muslims 'brown freedom-loving people.' The fact that there are so many 'white Muslims' among us proves that the destructive Muslim spirit has already infected wide circles of our population. It is a warning to us that we have to take up the battle against the Muslim world plague everywhere."
Argument 5: "Mr. Abdullah is not a real Muslim, since he has renounced terrorism!" — Counterargument: As we have already shown, Islam is not a religion. It is a peculiar sort of religion when one could smell its adherents from a great distance! No, a Muslim always remains a Muslim. "Are these turbans and burkas a kind of uniform that allows the God Allah to recognize his old body guard, even if they have deserted?" "I have no desire to convert the Muslims," somebody wrote, "since that is impossible." A Muslim remains a Muslim.

Argument 6: "It is true that Mr. Abdullah is a Muslim, but his parents and grandparents lived here. He is one of our old established citizens." — Counterargument: Just as a goat does not become a horse, even if his father and grandfather were in the same stall, a Muslim can never become a freedom-loving person, even if his ancestor came to our freedom-loving democracy during the Roman Empire.
Argument 7: "The Muslim is a human being too!" — Counterargument: "Of course the Muslim is a human being too. None of us has ever doubted it. But a flea is also an animal. But not a very pleasant one. Since a flea is not a pleasant animal, we have no duty to protect and defend it, to take care of it so that it can bite and torment and torture us. Rather, we make it harmless. It is the same with the Muslims.
Argument 8: "Everything with a human face is equal." — Counterargument: Thirteen days ago, the "Freedom-Loving Standard" carried a cartoon. In it, a miserable pig looked up from his sty to a royal lion. "Everything with an animal face is equal!" But what did the lion growl in reply? "That's what you swine would like to think!"
Argument 9: "Anti-Muslimism is only something for idiots!" Counterargument: One no longer hears this lie in Freedom-Loving Democracies. But one still reads it in the Muslim emigre press abroad, and Muslims whisper it here and perhaps some Muslim sympathizers still think that. We smile in response, and note that the Muslims have never produced a single creative man, but that all great men in every country have been implacable opponents of the Muslims. Some "intellectuals" may be distressed when one doubts their understanding, but we will follow the battle cry against Allah that all of the great men of our past have made!

Argument 10: "Can you live with the uproar and accept responsibility for the misery that the laws of the Freedom-Loving Democracies bring to thousands of Muslim families?" — Counterargument: "It is almost a miracle that absolutely nothing has happened to Muslims in Freedom-Loving Democracies. But even if a few hundred Muslim families in Freedom-Loving Democracies really did suffer persecution, what is that against the many millions of peace-loving families that the Muslim terrorists murdered over the course of centuries through suicide bombing, Sharia Law, and civil strife. "In the battle between the races, there is no truce. If you are determined finally to defend yourself, peace-and-freedom-loving people, then be pitiless!"

Illegally abridged from here:

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/responses.htm

As to the conduct of Pope Pius XII toward the holocast:
In the words of George Will: "Everybody is entitled to their own opinion but they are not entitled to their own facts.
See. http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/pius12.html

Is this a thread about stuff the Catholic church did many years ago, or are screamingly hateful anti-Catholics using this thread to throw off-topic poo at the Catholic church? I'd seriously question the cognitive capabilities of anyone who'd go with the former over the latter; trolls loooove leeching off of popular blogs to spread their nonsense and you'd have to be quite stupid to not see that.

Canada refused boatloads of Jews fleeing the holocaust - I had to learn that at the Holocaust museum in D.C. because we don't talk about it much up here - and so did virtually every other country in the world. In light of this, calling out the Catholic church betrays extreme ignorance. Case closed; any further off-topic poo-flinging by anti-Catholic haters should be treated as such.

How about an immigrant's oath? We already have an oath of citizenship, but to me it's too little too late. Before they actually come here, or at the first knowledge they have arrived, let's have all immigrants sign a contract and take an oath promising the following: I do solomnley swear to uphold and abide by the laws and customs of Canada, its provinces and territories and will diligently undertake to inform myself of same. By leaving my old country and coming to Canada, I forgive all injustices done to me by any and every group or individual, and hereby forego any vendettas, animosities or attempts at restitution or vengeance against any members of those groups residing in Canada. While cherishing my religious and cultural roots, I will respect the separation of church and state, the equality of the sexes, freedom of speech, religion and the press. I will hold supreme the democratic process of Canada as the means of working for change and will eschew any threats or acts of violence in the pursuit of change. I will provide no aid, support or comfort moral or material to Canada's enemies even if that enemy be the country I am leaving or a group therein. I shall be fully truthful in all particulars regarding my application to immigrate. Should I violate this oath, it shall be as though my application were made under false pretenses and I shall be subject to immediate deportation without right of appeal. So help me (insert deity here).
Well, off the top of my head, it's a start! Thoughts, additions or deletions?

With multiculturalism Canada is going down down the tube. How can a national identity and respect for our values be instilled in new immigrants.To give them money to build there community centre's or religious centre's is not the way.As it is know we are promoting Tribeism not being part of Canada.Our Goverment spends to much time apoligizing to every one except CANADIANS.Some of these groups should be apoligizing to us for not standing for our values.If you do not belive in Democracy why be here.

The lpc has been mining the immigrant vote for years...for Canada, a waste of tax $'s. Let the centres be built with monies raised by those who have exclusive use of the facilities. And, as Chum Ronarts said, "With multi-culturalism, Canada is going down the tube". We have always been a multi-cultural country...it's only when it became a political policy that the real, open-door problems began.

Not being tied to any religion, or obligated to be loyal to any, however I am quick to admit there is great wisdom in many faiths.

Easing off on the ONE single topic of Muhammad lampoons seems pretty minor and not exactly like any distressing loss of speech freedoms that some wailers imply.

If the cartoons are feeding into the plot to increase the disruption of peace and democracy, then surely the Western media is mature enough to practice a little restraint.
TG

Great link between the Aussies' problems with islamofascists and the Danes'/Vatican's problems.
On a related note, the first edition of the Carnival of Centrism is up. We've got yourself, the Lebanese bloggers, and a number of other interesting things on foreign policy, canadian politics, and economics which might interest you. Centrist carnival.

Likes-it-up-the-Anonalogue:

You are a friggin' classic, textbook repressed Catholic.

Yeah, Pius did nothing wrong during WWII, and those who bring that topic up are nothing but slanderers and libelers.

Anon, please move out of your Grandma's house, and remember: if and whne you ever do get married, don't pull out your wallet! Unlike every other time you've been laid, you don't need to pay this one...in fact, it will do you some harm.

SOMAS

WHat I meant to say was:...after you have consummated your marriage, don't....

Ward "What excuse do they have. Can you name me a less racist more generous country than Canada Jose?"

No I can't. Things have changed a lot since 1974. By the time we hit our teens anti-immigrant feeling disappeared, at least for white immigrants.

When I say we were part of a "gang" I mean it in a different sense than you. We were a bunch of six year olds and other than stealing my dad's car and the odd issue of Playboby I didn't commit any crimes. Our gang exsisted merely for self defence.

The problems you describe in Vancouver go well above and beyond anything I've seen in Canada. It's troubling to hear about it and I don't have an explanation for it.

It's worth noting that Britain's youth are a pack of scrappy hellions and always have been. There was a famous incident just after WW2 where two schoolkids shot their teacher for instance. And the town where I live, Brighton, was regularly trashed on weekends during brawls between the mods and the rockers in the late 60s. The Brits always manage to grow out of it and I hope the youths you're talking about do the same.

Speak freely in Saudi Arabia

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3548660.stm

Trial begins for Saudi reformists
By Kim Ghattas
BBC News

Political rallies remain very rare in Riyadh
Three reform advocates have appeared in court in Saudi Arabia for the first time.

The trial comes at a time when the Saudi royal family is under pressure to implement its promises for reform in the monarchy.

Matrouq al-Faleh, Abdullah al-Hamid and Ali al-Demaini were arrested in March.

A prosecution statement accused them formally of promoting a constitutional monarchy and using Western terminology in demanding political reforms.

In the eyes of the authorities, this amounts to a threat to national unity.

After more than four months in jail, the three men appeared in an Islamic court in Riyadh in what is thought to be the first public political trial in the kingdom.

They were arrested with 10 other moderate reform activists.

Most of those arrested were eventually released after promising to call for reform only through official channels or end their pro-reform activities altogether.

The trial of the three men was adjourned until 24 August.

It is unclear what kind of verdict they might face.

Aims of openness

In Saudi Arabia the judge determines the sentence on the basis of Sharia, or Islamic law.

Until recently, prisoners in the absolute monarchy never had access to a lawyer and had no visitation rights, and, other than a few exceptions, trials were always closed to the public.

The three reformists were given access to a lawyer, but only three months into their detention.

Their trial in public appears to be sign of some openness, but authorities may also want it to deter anyone watching from engaging in independent reform activities.
===========================

The BBC is well respected for delivering the truth in news.

With the above in mind it is logical to surmise that our freedom, peace and democracy strikes fear in the hearts of wealthy kings who enjoy total iron fisted power.

Not pointing any fingers, but one has to wonder where all the blind hate and poison directed through Palestine towards Israel for the last 32 years stems from.

One has to wonder where the plot to riot and burn embassies over a few nasty cartoons of Muhammad that appeared in the European press comes from.

One has to wonder if that plot is intended to disrupt advancing peace and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Do you suppose not printing cartoons on the one topic of Muhammad for a while will lead to our loss of freedom of the press? Will avoiding the single target of Muhammad cripple the cartoon industry?

Maybe it would be better to commit more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan security to protect all those brave souls who risked their lives and purple fingers for a peaceful and more fair government.
http://tinyurl.com/s5npf

No doubt cartoonists will be able to lampoon Muhammad later on, when moderate governments recognize free speech and the plot is exposed. TG

While cherishing my religious and cultural roots, I will respect the separation of church and state...

There is no separation of church and state in Canada. In fact, the head of state, the Queen, is also Defender of the Faith.

In a liberal democracy, no one has the authority to tell others "they do not have a right to offend".

Some thoughts on this back at my place.