Human shield gets Fined?

[MJHerman]

AWMac - See Martlet's post for the way one should present their viewpoint.

Martlet - Somewhere (like 10 posts ago) I think everyone lost track of what in the world this whole thread was about Anyway:

1.  All nations act in their own self-interest, including Canada, France, etc.  Goes a long way to explain France's and Germany's objections to Gulf War II.  France was looking to rejuvenate its "world" power (which it hasn't had since 1870 or so) and Germany was in the middle of an election.  So, if we accept that all political entities act in their own self-interest, its time to start calling Freedom Fries French Fries again.  Can't have it both ways...either acting in one's own interest is acceptable or it isn't.

2.  I agree with you on Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group.  The mere act of doing so forfeits, in my mind, any rights that those people may have.  Admittedly it is awfully tough to draw a distinction, but I think that my original comment was in respect of prisoners at Gitmo.  Not all of them were actively engaged in terrorist activities at the time of their capture, but rather were fighting an invader/occupier.  Again, I don't know how you draw the line (or if its even possible), and I won't pretend to second guess U.S. national security interests as a Monday Morning Quarterback.  I just think that the manner in which US policy is presented to and perceived by the world at large is one of contradictions and inconsistencies, and that doesn't help the situation.

In short, you guys need better public relations

[AWMac]

Hmmmm interesting.... but still a rather a nice set of evasives from being forthright to the questions.  

Articulate... please excuse my typing.

"Bar of New York City" - Doesn't exist. But then you would know that had you read the post and seen "State of New York".

Nice evasion here also....

And of course, one always needs to include the slander against the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces. We all know that but for the mighty US military those Iraqi T-72s might right now be rolling down the streets of downtown Toronto.

Was this really a response or another evasive twist to a real question?


And in Securing America's borders maybe there will soon be a voted bill upon the floor of OUR Congress.  

If it should be then keep your GM parts and maybe you in CanaDUH will someday produce a CanaDUHian vehicle.

BURN3D

[Stringer]

Originally posted by MJHerman
2.  Since you asked, the laws which protect and preserve French in Quebec are doing just fine and are serving their purpose.  Having grown up in Montreal, I benefitted from those laws even though my first language is English.  Those laws forced me to learn a second language which, to this day, I read, write and speak fluently.  Our country respects the cultures and customs of others, and chooses to incorporate them into our society, rather than insulting them.    

If your country has this great respect for other cultures, why does 1 province need laws to "protect" that culture, and why if this respect is so apparent does this 1 province continually ring the succession (sp?) bell.

Furthermore, why does it take laws to preserve the language, if this great Utopia exists?

If it is a law in this 1 province, then your "country" didn't choose to incorporate anything into your society as a whole..  

And maybe the point can be argued that this 1 province has chosen not to respect the direction that the rest of the country is going.

Quebec is not about tolerance of other cultures.  It is about the promotion of 1 french speaking culture.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by MJHerman

1.  All nations act in their own self-interest, including Canada, France, etc.  Goes a long way to explain France's and Germany's objections to Gulf War II.  France was looking to rejuvenate its "world" power (which it hasn't had since 1870 or so) and Germany was in the middle of an election.  So, if we accept that all political entities act in their own self-interest, its time to start calling Freedom Fries French Fries again.  Can't have it both ways...either acting in one's own interest is acceptable or it isn't.

2.  I agree with you on Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group.  The mere act of doing so forfeits, in my mind, any rights that those people may have.  Admittedly it is awfully tough to draw a distinction, but I think that my original comment was in respect of prisoners at Gitmo.  Not all of them were actively engaged in terrorist activities at the time of their capture, but rather were fighting an invader/occupier.  Again, I don't know how you draw the line (or if its even possible), and I won't pretend to second guess U.S. national security interests as a Monday Morning Quarterback.  I just think that the manner in which US policy is presented to and perceived by the world at large is one of contradictions and inconsistencies, and that doesn't help the situation.

In short, you guys need better public relations

1.  I agree that changing the name to Freedom Fries was stupid.  I take it as a joke, though.   More of a political statement.  I agree that the French have to act in their own best interest., just as we do.  That doesn't mean when their best interests conflict with ours, we shut up and take it.  Many of their interests were economic, and in direct violation of the UN sanctions which they supported (ie:  CIS Paris transactions).  The American people have shown their disapproval with their wallets, and it has affected the French.  It will soon blow over, though.  Americans have short memories with things like that.

2.  I don't know how, or if, you'd draw the distinction.  The Taliban directly supported Al Queda, so I personally haven't shed a tear.  "We hold no distinction between the terrorists, and the country that harbor them".

[MJHerman]

AWMac,

My apologies that you couldn't decipher how cryptic my last response was, so:

Does Canada have a Bar?
Thought I answered this one, but if you missed it the first time, I guess it does (in fact 13 of them), otherwise I guess my lawyer credentials in this country are a figment of my imagination.  Interestingly enough, we also have thousands of "bars" as well where you can get a nice cold beer and other adult beverages.

The Canadian military?
Very small but very professional.  I will suggest that you contact any member of the 101st Airborne Division who was involved in combat operations on "The Whale" in Afghanistan and ask them their thoughts on the average Canadian soldier (particularly Canadian snipers).  If you are into the historical side of things, try entering "Dieppe", "Vimy Ridge", "Ortona", "Carpiquet", "Falaise Gap", "Bishop" or "Beurling" into Google and see what you come up with.  Or pick up a good book on the Battles of the North Atlantic in WWII.  None of those bear any relation to the current state of the Canadian military, but each of them are evidence of what a relatively small population can do when it has the right tools.

If we keep the GM parts and build a car here in CanaDUH, and the auto workers in Detroit don't have the parts to build cars, doesn't that mean that US workers lose their jobs while we keep ours?  If that is the case, can I please vote on that Bill that is in front of Congress.

Any other questions that I didn't reply to in a forthright manner?  Please let me know because I am always willing to help friends out with concepts that are totally alien to them.

[MJHerman]

Martlet,

Personally I can't stand George W., but I do have a lot of respect for him (or his speechwriters) when it comes to some of the things that he has said.

Along with "We hold no distinction between the terrorists, and the country that harbor them" I always thought that his first statement at Ground Zero was worthy of history's all time sound bites.  It was something like "Well I can hear you, and soon the people who knocked down these buildings will hear from all of us."

[AWMac]

Hmmmm my knowledge of history escapes me at times...refresh my memories if you will.

There's a gap in South Korea that I had visited that was dedicated to Canadians... tough spot for them I'd say.

Hmmm and there's one on the shores during WWII... Is it Tubruk?

I tend to forget at times.

[MJHerman]

Originally posted by Stringer
If your country has this great respect for other cultures, why does 1 province need laws to "protect" that culture, and why if this respect is so apparent does this 1 province continually ring the succession (sp?) bell.

Furthermore, why does it take laws to preserve the language, if this great Utopia exists?

If it is a law in this 1 province, then your "country" didn't choose to incorporate anything into your society as a whole..  

And maybe the point can be argued that this 1 province has chosen not to respect the direction that the rest of the country is going.

Quebec is not about tolerance of other cultures.  It is about the promotion of 1 french speaking culture.

All valid points, but you have to draw a couple of distinctions:

1.  The whole succession thing - Like a lot of other things, the talk of seperation/succession is driven by politicians.  The easiest way to explain it is to compare it to the U.S. Civil War which had a lot to do with state rights.  One political party in Quebec believes that federalism limits the rights of the province.  It's not a language/culture issue at its core...its a constitutional issue.

2. The first language of 85% of people in Quebec is French.  Prior to the enactment of the French language laws (roughly 1976), English was the predominant language, with the result that some 85% of the local population could not or did not receive services in their mother tongue, could not educate their children in French schools, etc.  The laws in question don't limit the rights of anyone who doesn't speak French (and in fact helps them by promoting a bilingual society), but rather were intended simply to redress the balance.  Although not to the same degree, you could equate it with the Civil Rights Movement in the US in the 60s.

3.  The rest of the country has always accepted the principle that Quebec and its population are different culturally (putting aside the rednecks that any nation has to deal with).  Canada has two official languages, and has had two official languages since 1759.  So the concept of English and French co-existing predates Quebec's language laws by more than 200 years.

4.  French Canadians do not think that they are "better" or that French Canadian culture is "more worthy" (again, putting aside the rednecks).  I have yet to meet a French Canadian who believes that English Canada should be eradicated from Quebec.  Look at it this way, if history dealt you a deck of cards that said that you were one of 8 million French speaking people with a common history, language and culture sitting on a continent with another 250 million people who have a different history, language and culture, how would you feel?  Some people would say "assimilate"....French Canadians have always chosen not to.

All I can suggest would be spending a week or two in Montreal.  You concern about the tolerance level of French Canadians may be changed and, if not, it is a great party town

[Rude]

Freedom isn't something you earn. It is a God giving right inherent at birth. It is not granted to people at the whim of the state, the courts or the President. And the only way it can be taken away is in accordance with due process and the rule of law.

While many are born into a free society, that freedom does not remain without sacrifice. Your statement above regarding the loss of freedom only by means of due process and law does not hold water. Please show me the evidence of freedoms inherent by birth for those who live in countries ruled by dictators and criminals...the Middle East, Africa, etc.

Incarceration is not the only means of losing one's freedom....recite for me the due process layed out for the Iraqi people over the past 30 years....or perhaps those in Bosnia or Africa.

Where you may believe that freedom is your right by words alone, I believe that freedom is my priviledge and that it requires a constant defense.

Either freedom is universal or it isn't. If US-type freedom is universal (in fact I recall your President making statements about how Gulf War II was about freedom), then it should be extended to everyone and only taken away in accordance with the very laws that you cherish so much and rely on so much to preserve "your" freedom. If it isn't, then the US should get off it's high horse and call it like it is. You have the bigger guns, so you can do what you want. The latter is fine with me too, but if that's the case, cut the rhetoric about "freedom" and "democracy" and just say "We do it because we can".

The freedom I spoke to earlier was that which is afforded American citizens as opposed to those afforded criminals from outside our jurisdiction who come to this country to kill us or destroy this nation.

Now councelor....you may feel that even those terrorists are afforded the same defense as an American criminal, I do not. It is this very bleeding heart approach to justice, which in my opinion has corrupted our justice system....the very criminals which do us harm, are often afforded more rights than those who are victimized and the lawyers of this country are very much a part of the problem.

The freedom President Bush speaks to is for those who ride under the foot of corrupt governments or other organized bodies which oppress the innocent....what specific law would you reference which would or could free those peoples around the world of which I speak?

As to my freedom, my founding fathers and the generations since fought to obtain and keep their freedom as well, both on the battlefield and off, as did many people in other democratic societies around this world. I have also served and continue to serve my country to preserve those freedoms and the ideals that we believe in. So sorry, but no monopoly for you on that either.

Never spoke to only wanting freedom for Americans....your leading the witness.

You also contradict yourself with the above....you speak of fighting to obtain freedom, while within the same post you say it is is inherent by birth and not earned.

As to the whole gun thing...I'm sure your founding fathers specifically intended that every Joe Sixpack should have the right to own a semi-automatic weapon when they wrote the words:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

In 1791 that made sense. In 2003, if you need a gun to protect your person and property, its probably time to consider moving to a new neighbourhood. Either way I don't care...if you want your guns that's fine. Just don't pretend that because other societies choose to limit the risks that their children will be gunned down at school or their co-workers will open fire on them that it makes those societies any "less free".

This is interesting....any less free? I suppose that freedom is defined by you and yours in East Canada?

Just prior to posting this, I got off the phone with a friend of mine in Alberta...his opinion differs slightly from your own and I'm confident you know why.

You seem so very intersted in defending the freedoms of those who choose to kill, but those who abide by the law, never committing any crime, are the ones whom you choose to punish.

It's good to know that some things in life are constant...Lawyers speak out of both sides of their mouths in countries other than the USA.

Lawyers here in the US should take a long and careful look into who they are and why they practice....perhaps they might come to realize that the perversion of our legal system is born directly on their shoulders....of course, I'm sure it's different in Canada:)

[MJHerman]

Originally posted by AWMac
Hmmmm my knowledge of history escapes me at times...refresh my memories if you will.

There's a gap in South Korea that I had visited that was dedicated to Canadians... tough spot for them I'd say.

Hmmm and there's one on the shores during WWII... Is it Tubruk?

I tend to forget at times.

The place in South Korea escapes me at the moment too.  Kowang San rings a bell as the location of one of the battles in Korea.

I could be wrong, but Canadian units did not fight in North Africa, especially at Tobruk.  You may be thinking of the Aussies and the Kiwis.

[AWMac]

Yes you are right about Kowang San...8th Rgmt if I'm mistaken. They held their own but defeated.

Tobruk was in my sense Canadian. Largest evacuation ever in the history of WWII... Let me do a Google on it.  

[MJHerman]

You are thinking about Dunkirk (a Brit affair).  Tobruk was under siege by the Afrika Korps and eventually surrendered.

Kowang San was 1st Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment.  For a spunky Canadian Battalion holding off a division of Chinese I would say that "defeated" is probably not the right word....more like "strategic withdrawal"

[Martlet]

Every country that fights has a history of defeats in battle.   Using them to imply a military is incapable just doesn't hold water.  Canada's military doesn't compare with the U.S.  No one's does.  But I've worked with members of it, and found them to be very capable at what they do.  

Further, even though some perceive tension between the U.S. and Canada, one of the biggest mistakes we can make is to judge a nations people by the actions of it's leader.  Canada's P.M. is at the end of his career.  He's blatantly anti-American, and is using his office to portray that.   Many canadian politicians have publicly stated they don't support many of his decisions.  I had a business office in Canada once, and except for the time I got in a fight with a guy for screwing his girlfriend, I found them to be extremely friendly towards Americans.  That's just my experience though.

I also found French Canadians to be different.  I found them to be extremely rude, and extremely cheap.  Again, that's just my personal experiences.

[Stringer]

Originally posted by MJHerman
All I can suggest would be spending a week or two in Montreal.  You concern about the tolerance level of French Canadians may be changed and, if not, it is a great party town

I lived in Boston for 16 years.  I am VERY familiar with Montreal and it's attractions

I will say that my exposure to French Canadians has been negative when they vacation in Maine, but in Montreal, it has been very positive

[MJHerman]

Our P.M.'s career was finished years ago.  Frankly, most Canadians are embarrassed at his conduct on a wide variety of stuff.  The guy has been a politician for 45 years if you could believe, and you would have thought after all that time he would have learned something!

His "leadership" skills are non-existant.  When the power went out last week this guy was sitting in his vacation home in Quebec (maybe a 90 minute flight from Ottawa).  He chose not to fly back to Ottawa during the crisis, even though this is the same guy who authorized our Department of Defence to purchase four brand new VIP/Executive transport jets at a time when the Government said that it couldn't afford to replace the 40+ year old Sea Kings that the Navy is still flying off the back of our destroyers and frigates.

I'm sorry you guys have had some negative experiences with Canadians (French or English), but I guess that happens all over.  Reminds me of the Simpson's episode where Bart gets an elephant.  At the end of the show, they give the elephant to the zoo, and the elephant immediately starts picking fights with the other elephants.  The zoo keeper makes the comment that elephants are territorial and that this elephant who is beating up on the others is just trying to show who the boss is.  The zoo keeper then pauses and says: "Or it could be that the elephant is just a jerk...".