Right along with all of the Liberal Party, for their support of the Tamil Tigers.
British MP banned from entering Canada
- Thread starter earth_as_one
- Start date
TenPenny
Right along with all of the Liberal Party, for their support of the Tamil Tigers.
Care to present us with some evidence of this?
Right along with all of the Liberal Party, for their support of the Tamil Tigers.
Care to present us with some evidence of this?
Note the place was also run by Turks who hated Arabs (the Arabs kept rebelling). That's why the Turks asked Jews to settle there, to counterbalance the Arabs.
I inserted a word in your statement in red that better conveys the nature of the matter. Its one group saying our ancestors had the land first, then your ancestors took it, then our ancestors took it back.
The other is saying our ancestors had it then your ancestors took it from us. Either taking land from someone because of their ancestors actions is wrong or it isn't. Either way Palestinians are hosed by simple logic. Ya, the 19th century was a bad time for colonists taking land, deal with it like everyone else, because thats when the majority of the "Land theft" occurred. The talk of 1948 as some kind of magic date is absurd, thats the date when it came to a head. It like pretending all the colonization of Canada happened in 1867 and in 1866 it was still entirely occupied by first nations.
1.) Just because you are a democracy does not mean other democracies have to like you or treat you nice or not be your enemy. The way you vote doesn't get to dictate how others treat you. They get to have their own elections thank you.
2.) Palestine MAY be a democracy, having on election does not a democracy make. Having TWO elections is a good start, and when there is the first handover of power when someone loses, thats a better example. The Soviet Union still had regular elections after all.
To be fair, that IS a crock of shyte.
Israel is a western democracy, that means those same assholes who rob old ladies, do unspeakable things to children and then organize NAMBLA parades, and those psycopaths who get tanked at 2 in the afternoon and drive home at 80kmph through a school zone,
they exist in Israel too. Its a western liberal democracy, including the warts that go with it. I also don't doubt their soldiers shot at you nor have done bad things.
Seeing as our own Military conduct as a purely professional non-draft, peaceful nation involves our own share of torture and shame in recent history, I don't think we can pretend our own farts don't stink.
The Liberal Party refused to put the LTTE on the list of terror organizations because there are 100,000 Tamils in the TO area......several prominent Liberals, including Paul Martin, attended fund-raisers for the LTTE.........and it ain't over. There is at least one Liberal MP accused of supporting the LTTE now, since the Conservative gov't added them to the list of banned terror organizations.
Canadian liberal party MP in hot water for participating in LTTE terrorist rally
even more fun....scroll down to the letter from habitual Liberal scumbag Derek Lee:
Liberal MP invites entire caucus to Tamil terrorist rally - Ezra Levant
And an article on the old Liberal party ties to LTTE.
http://webhome.idirect.com/~sluna/elegu.htm
the Liberal Party of Canada would not know a principle if it lept up and bit them on the arse.
Last edited:
Zzarchov
The other is saying our ancestors had it then your ancestors took it from us. Either taking land from someone because of their ancestors actions is wrong or it isn't. Either way Palestinians are hosed by simple logic. Ya, the 19th century was a bad time for colonists taking land, deal with it like everyone else, because thats when the majority of the "Land theft" occurred. The talk of 1948 as some kind of magic date is absurd, thats the date when it came to a head. It like pretending all the colonization of Canada happened in 1867 and in 1866 it was still entirely occupied by first nations.
There is some logic in your post. However, for justice to be served (in the absense of justice for the Palestinians in Israel), there has to be some consensus from external parties to decide on what would be just. In this case it would be the United Nations. The UN has (IMO rightfully) ruled against Israel in virtually every instance of "ownership" of the land.
Of course the Likudniks would have you believe that the UN discriminates unfairly against Israel. This "spin" is so widespread that many Israeli supporters actually believe it.
Even in Canada, the First Nations have the laws available to them to pursue land claims (and I am aware that the pace of justice here is slow), and Canadians accept the decision of the courts. The fact that it may be many generations later is not relevant when it comes to the law. Palestinians have no such right in Israel and the theoretical right even in the occupied territories has shown to be a sham.
Bottom line....somebody has to administer justice and there is no better tool than the UN at the moment.
The other is saying our ancestors had it then your ancestors took it from us. Either taking land from someone because of their ancestors actions is wrong or it isn't. Either way Palestinians are hosed by simple logic. Ya, the 19th century was a bad time for colonists taking land, deal with it like everyone else, because thats when the majority of the "Land theft" occurred. The talk of 1948 as some kind of magic date is absurd, thats the date when it came to a head. It like pretending all the colonization of Canada happened in 1867 and in 1866 it was still entirely occupied by first nations.
There is some logic in your post. However, for justice to be served (in the absense of justice for the Palestinians in Israel), there has to be some consensus from external parties to decide on what would be just. In this case it would be the United Nations. The UN has (IMO rightfully) ruled against Israel in virtually every instance of "ownership" of the land.
Of course the Likudniks would have you believe that the UN discriminates unfairly against Israel. This "spin" is so widespread that many Israeli supporters actually believe it.
Even in Canada, the First Nations have the laws available to them to pursue land claims (and I am aware that the pace of justice here is slow), and Canadians accept the decision of the courts. The fact that it may be many generations later is not relevant when it comes to the law. Palestinians have no such right in Israel and the theoretical right even in the occupied territories has shown to be a sham.
Bottom line....somebody has to administer justice and there is no better tool than the UN at the moment.
I know I wouldn't pay taxes to a govt that kept taking my farm acre by acre and then totally cutting my access to it off because somebody built a road across my land to get to their new village on my land.
Thx for the link TenPenny and Colpy
So some Liberals pulled a Jason Kenney and went to a gathering that was primarily for supporters of a terrorist organization. They are no more "supporting" terrorism than was Jason Kenney.
So some Liberals pulled a Jason Kenney and went to a gathering that was primarily for supporters of a terrorist organization. They are no more "supporting" terrorism than was Jason Kenney.
Nor would I respect their claims to my land no matter how big of a gun is pointed at me or no matter how many of my family they killed I'd still fight even if they took my gun away. Hell I might even launch homemade rockets at the village that fires shots into my village all night and alll day long.
As far as being barred, Canadian citizenship doesn't matter either. We have shown we will even bar Canadians when no actual charges have been laid. We also appear have a problem with the idea of bringing home Canadians to face a judicial decision more in the fairness of our court systems when a Canadian is receiving punishment that is not in line with our views of human rights, OR not even being given a fair trial at all.
How about if they claimed that God gave them your land, would that convince you?
Meanwhile, I've got my tickets to see Galloway tonight. I consider my presence a vote in favor of peace and free speech and against the current Canadian government's support of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
and attempts by the Harper government to muzzle criticism o Israel's war crimes and crimes againt humanity.
The only real straw man here are the terrorism laws themselves. I think Machjo illustrated that clearly. A law that gives more the appearance of having function as a political lever at the government's personal discretion than for actual application of upholding a more critical role towards justice and fairness.
I don't even mention security because you don't need special laws on top of existing laws that already protect us domestically. As for outside our borders, any pipe dream of having a war on terror is about as realistic as a war on drugs. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Every country has had it's own terrorists heroes at one time.
Even Canada. For example to some Louis Riel is a terrorist. To others he is a hero. Why would Canada have statues erected for a terrorist? The guy was part of a rebellion in our borders that could only be described as an insurgency which acted in ways, such as killings and hostage taking, that by today's definition we coin as terrorism. Still their are statues to honour the man.
The argument for barring Galloway does have legal jurisdiction if all one does is support laws in that their application should be absolute. However, that is a road which always leads to some level of injustice. The current law as it stands is flawed. I think our country deserves better even if our current government at this time doesn't.
I don't even mention security because you don't need special laws on top of existing laws that already protect us domestically. As for outside our borders, any pipe dream of having a war on terror is about as realistic as a war on drugs. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Every country has had it's own terrorists heroes at one time.
Even Canada. For example to some Louis Riel is a terrorist. To others he is a hero. Why would Canada have statues erected for a terrorist? The guy was part of a rebellion in our borders that could only be described as an insurgency which acted in ways, such as killings and hostage taking, that by today's definition we coin as terrorism. Still their are statues to honour the man.
The argument for barring Galloway does have legal jurisdiction if all one does is support laws in that their application should be absolute. However, that is a road which always leads to some level of injustice. The current law as it stands is flawed. I think our country deserves better even if our current government at this time doesn't.
I agree in part only: the sections of the anti-terror laws thatb truncated rights in this country need to be dumped......we don't need secret trials, detention without trial, etc.
However, I do believe we need laws to prevent terrorist organizations from raising funds in Canada....the LTTE especially has been engaged in protection rackets, violence, fraud, etc to gain money from the Tamil community......as well, if you come to Canada to live, you should leave your wars behind. If you are a member of a listed terror organization, and were not born in Canada, you should be shipped right back to wherever it is you came from......full stop, no excuse, no "but I'm Canadian now" (No, or you wouldn't be involved) no "but they might torture/kill me" I don't give a rat's ass.
If you want all the rights and priviledges of living in Canada.....forget the old country, the old hatreds, the old vendettas.....or go home and fight it out.
I don't think the funding issue should equate to laws pertaining to terrorism either. I think any enforcement issue over funding should relate more to concerns over monies being used in human rights violations. There is a substantial difference in that. Moreover carrying out such laws should also take into account motivation and intent with regards to funding. Terrorism on the other hand seems to be a relative term used by the 'one accusing the other' and being enabled for political necessity.
Our government regards the Taliban in the vein of terrorism, yet now our government speaks of engagement. Our government has done a lot of funding projects in Afghanistan, but can not give validation on who at times is benefiting from our money and efforts spent. In many cases those resources and monies go into those who are working against us while also abetting those who additionally carry out terrorist attacks (as per our current definition) against our troops.
The whole concept of dealing with such problems under the banner of terrorism is walking down a circular path of failure. A circular path of hypocrisy.
Our government regards the Taliban in the vein of terrorism, yet now our government speaks of engagement. Our government has done a lot of funding projects in Afghanistan, but can not give validation on who at times is benefiting from our money and efforts spent. In many cases those resources and monies go into those who are working against us while also abetting those who additionally carry out terrorist attacks (as per our current definition) against our troops.
The whole concept of dealing with such problems under the banner of terrorism is walking down a circular path of failure. A circular path of hypocrisy.
Not to mention that he attended a rally...he isn't funding them. He, like Galloway is free to speak his mind and support anybody he chooses. Handing them a twenty would get his ass landed in jail. Sometimes I really wonder why this is so difficult a concept to understand...but them I remember who I'm discussing this with.