I left you a decent comment regarding how our Canadian Forces fought and died, not as peacemakers, but as warriors. They died in the First and Second World War, and the Korean War, to ensure you have the right to express yourself freely. They were not peacemakers in these wars, they were full blown killers and warriors. That's what soldiers do in wartime.
Rather than publish my comment, you've published a variety of comments putting down the Canadian Forces, including one commenter who wishes to: Fight the Canadian Forces.
Charles, there are 42,000 Canadian bodies in France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Hong Kong, and North Africa. These bodies were once young men like me who gave up their lives for us. They weren't peacemakers. They were soldiers, fighting a real war, against a very real threat of totalitarianism and fascism.
They gave up their lives so people could: Fight the Canadian Forces. May they rest in peace.
During the first world war canadians had no choice but to go to war, and it was a completely senseless war that had absolutely nothing to do with canadian freedoms.
The second world war was a bit different, but once again it had nothing to do with freedom. Hitler had zero interest in North America, mostly because Canada and the US were among the biggest suppliers of the Hitler war buildup and most canadian and american corporations made fortunes off the war right up to the point war was declared.
The Korean war was much the same, and canadians played very little part in that, and it was after korea that Canada told the US to screw themselves when they got involved in Vietnam because canadian politicians listened to the public who knew damn well it was simply american aggression.
None of those had to do with canadian freedom, most of which came after the second world war and came about because of the extensive work of the United Nations, specifically the Declaration of Human Rights. That's when canadians finally got some rights, and once again those are being taken away.
Read some history, canadian history is brutal towards canadians. Its a history of attacks against average canadians by their own government. Don't take my word for it, go research it yourself. After the first world war there was a Canadian war, against the men who came home from fighting. After the second world war with the UN's help and the canadian public making demands the canadian government had to make some conscessions, although not nearly as many as canadians demanded.
The Taliban never declared war on anybody, so that can't even be compared to the two world wars. In the first Canada joined because it was part of the british empire, in the second it joined because Germany declared war on Britain, which was an ally. Nobody ever declared war on the US, they are the aggressors and therefore the more accurate comparison is that they are the germans and these arab country's are defending themselves.
Freedom is only rarely fought for on foreign soil, its far more often a struggle by people against their own governments.
Oh where to begin. I know, maybe firstly you could learn to capitalize the letters when they should be upper case. Secondly where is there a reference to your statement that Canadians "had no choice but to go to war" in the First World War? Thirdly could you please give us a list of these companies and corporations in North America that supplied the Nazi war machine prior the Second World War. I realize according you the list will be long as "most" would mean more than half, so just name the biggest five due to space limitations. Forthly the Korea War was fought with the blood spilled of men and women from many Countries. Canada was not there at the behest of the USofA. And do you really believe that the UN had anything to do with the freedoms we enjoy now? Maybe you could do a little reading of your own. Might I suggest you start at the Magna Charta and work forward? I think you will find that the Taliban did in fact declare war on somebody. And one last point that I think you can prove for yourself by doing a simple google search is the recorded fact that states that Japan declared war on the USofA. You end off with this: "Freedom is only rarely fought for on foreign soil, its far more often a struggle by people against their own governments." Other than the Magna Charta reference mentioned earlier, (and there was very little blood even then spilled, but it was indeed a fight on local terrain) I think that most fighting for freedom took place on foriegn soil. Could you be referring to peaceful protest and civil disobedience on a grand scale, with your final wrap up? Fighting to the death is quite unique and it usually is more severe than that.
Actually, Anon is correct. Canadians have rarely directly fought for their own freedom on foreign soil. They fought directly for the freedom of others. The French, Belgians, Dutch, Danes, Luxembourgers, and Norweigans all can thank their freedom to the 42,000 Canadian bodies lying overseas. That's why they still celebrate the Liberation in those nations. That's why 85 year old Canadians, forgotten in their own country, become instant celebrities in small town Holland. They Remember.
Canadians also fought and died in South Korea against communist aggression. Don't buy the bill of goods being sold. Korea was not an American aggressive war. Let's not forget the invasion of the south by 135,000 North Korean troops. The United Nations, the same folks who brought us our human rights apparently, fought that war. Some will claim Canada may only have played a small part, although 516 families across this country would beg to differ.
These Canadians did not fight and die for our freedom directly. They did something even better. They fought and died for the freedom of their fellow man. Over sixty years of liberal democracy in Europe is their legacy. The existence of the United Nations, and indeed, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is their legacy. You can pin the blame on the Canadian Army, the Americans, or whoever you want for these results. They'll gladly take it.
As the world's leading staples producer (then at least) many many commodities found their way to Germany, sometimes by proxy, but in many cases it was well known.
For the states, many of whose directors were canadians (the canadian Minister of Industry was the american CD Howe), the most obvious example is Ford, which set up extensive manufacturing plants which built many of the vehicles.
Most obvious of course, such an efficient form of genocide would not have been possible without the work of IBM, which made its first fortune with the 'punch card system' that let germans keep track of all its victims.
The current President's father was a keen supporter of Hitler, as were most americans, he was Time Magazine's 'man of the year'. One of the reasons is he succeeded in doing what the 'elite' of the states had failed to do, which was turn a representative democracy into a fascist state. In the states there had just been an attempt by financiers to turn the US into a military dictatorship, something not widely known but easily researched.
Any of those are easy to find, just go to google and type in world war 2 and 'trade'.
As for rights, the Magna Carta was signed in 1215 and had little to do with individual human rights. What it did was establish a sort of 'rule of law', which was already pretty much in place. It did not even place limits on the power of monarchy (though many think it did). However, this was only even recognized in some parts of europe, not worldwide.
If it were true that the Magna Carta had something to do with human rights we wouldn't have seen things like the spanish inquisition or the irish genocide-or most obviously the north and south american genocides. The middle ages weren't exactly a time noted for 'individual human rights'.
Just go read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Of course in most cases people don't even know how the UN works because there is no coverage of it. For those that don't, their website lists all their resolutions, these are voted on and become binding.
For the other comments, I didn't mention Japan so I don't know where that comes from, the Taliban never declared war on anybody, perhaps the above post refers to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, which the Taliban fought off.
For Korea, while the UN supported South Korea it was primarily a war that the US pushed forward, in fact it wasn't even technically a 'war' but a 'police action'. The UN met at the behest of Truman, and all forces were under MacAurthor. As mentioned, after that Canada's involvement in asia was non existent. It's true that 26,000 canadians served there, I didnt mean to imply that it was not a substancial operation, but only that it was an US operation and the last canadian asian one.
Lastly, I don't mean just civil disobedience, but quite ACTIVE disobedience. Go all over the world and you can see that most of the people's of the world are marginalized by their own government.
In Canada that includes natives, the homeless, the poor, the working poor, those who care about the environment,etc. It certainly isn't like other countries where the police and military kill their own populations, but its a question of degrees. The examples are so numerous that I don't have time to list them here. The only point I'll leave with is that canadians have next to no power to write legislation, that's done by somebody else. Virtually no canadians feel represented by their federal government, in fact far more people voted against the Prime Minster than voted for him, in fact here in NB the majority don't even support the guy with the power to do whatever he wants, but voted for the conservatives.
A very basic 'right' is to be able to control what happens to their society, a right canadians don't have. Being able to choose on of two people to make all the decisions is not 'control', as is obvious in NB where both parties say essentially the same thing.
Rob mentions a different issue, and that is fighting for those in other countries, but that's not what is being discussed.
Since 'we' were the aggressors here, then it doesn't follow that we are somehow fighting for the 'freedom' of Afghani's. In fact, if they even TRY to get freedom they are called 'terrorists'.
This is not world war 2 we're talking about. This is the US declaring war against a country because they felt that they were harboring a fugitive. No doubt there are plenty of fugitives from other countries hiding in the states, but none have declared war or started bombing.
More importantly, the 'freedom' of Afghani's isn't even an issue for Canada-just go read the mission plan. Canada is part of a 'security force', in the words of General Hillier, they are there to 'kill people'.
WE are not there to build schools or to enhance their democracy. In fact, more than a quarter of the representatives in their government are responsible for their worst crimes.
Notice that Afghan's simply have no choice in the matter. It's a simple thing to have SOME democracy, all they have to do is let the people vote in a referendum as to whether they want us there or not.
Moreover, human rights abuses aren't even investigated by canadians, although as we've seen sometimes they are committed by them. People would do well to remember Somalia, people with good intentions can respond to war in many ways, often nasty.
People should remember that nobody says 'do nothing', they simply say, don't uphold a puppet government that is currently fostering the same criminal environment that existed in the nineties which led to the rise of the taliban. There was so much crime that the taliban got huge amounts of support. For women, when the choice is between getting raped or killed, the tradeoff to wearing a burka and being accompanied by a male family member is an easy one to make.
Currently, we are back where it was in the nineties, with massive government corruption and tribal law, the same conditions as before which made Afghans support the taliban, the difference now is that allied forces work together to make sure taliban can't retake the country, all while the pipeline gets built for american and british corporations.
So comparisons to Korea or World War Two are not apt. The best comparison is that WE are now 'North Korea' and 'Germany' and inflicting aggression first on other countries. The question then becomes, how long before those victimized find enough allies to make us aggressors go the way of nazi germany.
Most of the world already know we are in the wrong and won't have anythign to do with the area. This is especially obvious in Europe, those countries mentioned above in Europe who owe their freedom partly to canadians know aggression when they see it, because they've been on the recieving end.
Well I must thank the participants here so far for this wonderful chance to have a blog locally - and as some are discussing in another on this site - good can come from opinion sharing. Anon at 4:29 PM comes back at 9:40 AM. Much better explanation of their points is seen the second time out for sure. But I remind the writer that their facts are not as impressive after the general references in their first post. And is it so much to ask of a commenter to show if not respect for, atleast a modicum of decorum for, our fallen and in some little way they could atleast show that by finding the shift key for big C Canadian? Apparently so, which leads this poster to believe that with that obvious slur repeated once more the writer at 9:40 AM is a left leaning policy wonk smitten with the Grand Mother of all Policy Wonks "The UN". The UN is a corrupt pool of misfits and dreamers. For example 9:40 AM takes glee in the fact that Henry Ford was a nasty Anti-Semite (and the evidence is there that good old Henry disliked most people of colour, not so much religious preference, and he was inclusive to all in his hating of both Jews and the others that comprise the Semites) and for that matter a large chunk of the business class prior the second world war that were in America being also alike in manner. Yet by pumping up the UN the writer seems selective once more in their take on the bunch that make a living holding down a job in New York. Can the poster possibly explain the actions of gutter punk "Coffee Annan" and his little dealings with his favorite son? How about Syria sitting at the table remarking on "Peace"? But these are things that Gun Banners always overlook. And make no mistake about it the only human right that matters is the right of a person to fight to the death to defend themselves and their families if they are part of one. Oh yes let's trot out the magic heritage moment and bring fellow Canadians in for a whirl. There was that Prime Minister what's his name, that convinced the world over that an actor [Thompson] could stand between two peoples on Cyprus and all will sleep well at night. And then there is that peace loving wonk that made up this great big list of rights that would be oh so nice, but never will be, in this - the real world. How many speeds do you have on yer bike there 9:40 AM? Eighteen. If so it would appear your writing age corresponds nicely. Just as Japan declared war on the USofA prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbour so did the Taliban declare Jihad on America prior to 9/11. You, like most immediately after Pearl Harbour seem to not know the same is true, of 9/11.
"During the first world war canadians [sic] had no choice but to go to war"
Looks really swell, eh 9;40 AM, but it is not true. You do save face somewhat by reworking your earlier comment to make it look as if your point was "Canada" had no choice but to go to war.
"If it were true that the Magna Carta had something to do with human rights we wouldn't have seen things like the spanish inquisition or the irish genocide-or most obviously the north and south american genocides. The middle ages weren't exactly a time noted for 'individual human rights'."
Is that right 9:40 AM? So let me see if I can connect with your line of thought here and put it in perspective. How about something really local:
Andy Scott knows that weapons do not kill people. He then votes for and endorses on behalf of his constituents, into force, a bill (C-68) in Ottawa that is designed to disarm the peoples of this country. Except of course, but for the military and police, which is exlained away by his cronies Alan Rock and Wendy Cukier as something that is better for society as a whole. Hmmm: Police and Army good. Society bad! It wasn't firearms that were used to exterminate a large chunk of the First Nations here in the Americas. It was the introduction of diseases from the old world that accomplished that. How much longer before Andy Scott joins Alan Rock and Wendy Cukier at your marvelous defender of human rights - The UN? Stock yer fanny pack and get on da bike. I guess what I am trying to say is that if by us going backwards for a short time under the previous federal Liberals in our rights to defend ourselves from powers of the State that are allowed to maintain their weapons (whatever they may be over the course of history, and they do change from rock in a sling and so forth, so try not to turn this into a laser beam finger pointer rant, in the future thank you very much) and as you see it the Magna Charta was just a little insignificant document. Hey look over there. See those starving inhabitants in that far away Country? Why don't you go over and comfort them with a little piece of paper that states that they have the right to food. What's that? "Coffee Annan" and his boy done took the money that was slated for relief.
"The only point I'll leave with is that canadians [sic] have next to no power to write legislation, that's done by somebody else."
Couldn't of said it better myself 9:40 AM. Couldn't have tried to put it more simply for you either. You let The UN write their little legislation and have it passed amongst themselves. You let Alan Rock try to jam it down our throats with the help of lackies such as Andy Scott with their Wendy Cukier in tow. You keep dreaming of pie in the sky and myself and others will try to fight to the end to stop that foolishness that those do so practice.
I recognize that writer! I'll just comment on the points that I actually understand.
There's no doubt that the UN has problems, but whatever problem people have with Kofi Annan, he hasn't been the President forever, and has very little actual power. For bureaucratic SNAFU's there's nobody like the US of A.
Most of the resolutions of the UN are controlled by the US, not some martian bureaucrats. The media never covers that though, but take a look at Rwanda, it was the US who held back the UN from calling Rwanda a 'genocide'. In cases of genocide the UN is forced to act, so while people blame the 'faceless, gutless UN', the media doesn't cover the fact that the US sits on the security council and can veto any and all legislation.
I know its pointless to say, but all those implications from the above weren't mine. The Magna Carta was what it was, but it wasn't about individual human rights. And the word 'canadians' isn't supposed to be capitalized.
The point above about Andy Scott proves my point about how rights are usually fought for within countries, whether gun rights, legal rights, etc. Nobody is going to come into canada and fight for those rights for canadians. I don't know what 'fighting' the above is doing, but lots of canadians are fighting for rights in many ways.
But say what you want about the UN, when the choice is between them and the US, I'll take the UN every time. THey might be run by the US but at least other countries have a voice.
To 10:55 stating: "I recognize that writer! I'll just comment on the points that I actually understand."
Have a look here: The Assize of Arms of Henry II required every free-man to keep arms suited to his station in life, and to be prepared to fight for the common defense. Richard I also assized the rights and duties of the nobles and free-men to the king and increased the privileges scutage in the Assize of Arms of 1198. Then on to Runnymeade 1215. Section 61 of the Magna Carta provided that if the King (John) did not follow the provisions of the charter, the Barons should have a right to correct the King by force until the King should begin to follow the articles of the charter. Thus the right of lawful revolution was born. This particular portion of the charta has been reaffirmed as were the regulations concerning the bearing of arms and tenure by serjeanty. Statute of Westminster.
Many thanks to whom ever wrote sections of that which have been edited by me. By the way.
You then go on to state: "The Magna Carta was what it was, but it wasn't about individual human rights."
Maybe you could read this part again. Complete with the preamble provided:
"the free rights and customs that they had always possessed." "Thus the right of lawful revolution was born."
You see I take for granted the rights I have always had. Individual rights. Rights that were then transformed into text and passed on for some fools to gloss over throughout time. I could go further back in time - to what is commonly referred to as "beliefs" - yet then you possibly and rightly so might understand that that was pointless on my part to bring in to this discussion, and therefore it will not be mentioned here.
Could you be more specific on the parts of my writings that you don't understand? Would they be parts you choose to gloss over without so much as taking the time to consider? What with your blinkered view that most possibly can be seen now by others here, or if not and time does allow and there is more space provided in future on this blog, one by one I will attempt to put the points I am trying to make, down into one syllable words, comprising four word sentences?
But for now I am confused at your latest comment:
You state: "But say what you want about the UN, when the choice is between them and the US, I'll take the UN every time. They might be run by the US but at least other countries have a voice."
Well gee golly. I can "say what I want" can I? Why are you so sure on your choice to take the UN over the USofA? Is it because the USofA might run the organization but at least other countries have a voice? If so, I will respond that you have in fact just described the world we live in - and not the UN at all. The USofA runs the world and, other countries, do have a voice. The UN is for misfits and dreamers. Always was always will be.
Oh what the heck you also state: "I know its pointless to say, but all those implications from the above weren't mine."
As you will, we will start at the top once more. You stated: "During the first world war canadians [sic] had no choice but to go to war"
In January 1916, Parliament passed the first conscription laws (compulsory enrollment) ever passed in Britain. Canada entered the First World War along with Britain in August 1914. Canada did not have in place a policy of conscription -although this was (controversially) changed in time. On January 1, 1918, Conscription officially comes into law in Canada. On November 11, 1918 Germany signed an armistice with the Allies – the official date of the end of World War One.
How many Canadians saw service that were in effect conscripted and not enlisted by their own voluntary means? answer: 25,000. How many Canadians chose not go to war? answer: More than one for sure.
I found this for you on ebay:
**Old skool raleigh bmx stunt bike with mag wheels.** C $45.77
Time Left: 3d 14h 30m
Don't forget your cycling helmet. But remember to take it off whilst on the playground equipment!
We can argue about the merits of war or about wars past, the reality is, if you join an army, any army, you are a trained soldier. They don't train you to play chess, they train you to shoot and kill. It's an ARMY. Helloooo. I have family in Afgan as we speak. It is stressful and makes us nervos every day we hear a soldier is injured or killed - but that is what he chose to do with his life. I don't necessarily agree with them being there but that is irrelevant at this point for my family. The advertisement should go a long way for recruiting psycho's who want to kill. The reason they can't recruit is because of the fighting and killing. Easy to join an army whne it's all fake, when it's real, no one wants to join - can't say as I blame them but, if you join, you do as your "employer" requests - or you get out and get a civilian job - make your choice.
One big reason why there is not enough money to enlist the backlog of hopefuls that want to join the forces is the sham that is contracting out of training to two huge "Lobby" Turned "Training Contractor" companies.
Do a quick search of Calian and Valcom.
Do a scan of past articles in the Oromocto Post-Gazette to see how those companies are selling their (allegedly) corrupt practice that is detailed in the many court battles the two companies are entwined with each other as we write. But as not to be distracted from my conversation with the one with the bike, I have not the time now to go into that further.
"The Assize of Arms of Henry II required every free-man....be prepared to fight for the common defense."
What that means is that everybody has to be prepared for conscription at a moment's notice. That's hardly 'freedom'. People didn't 'vote' for war.
"Section 61 of the Magna Carta provided that if the King (John) did not follow the provisions of the charter, the Barons should have a right to correct the King by force"
That also has nothing to do with individual rights. Barons and Kings? That simply defines the relationship between the monarchy and the aristocracy, not the people who are 99.999999% of the population.
"the free rights and customs that they had always possessed." "Thus the right of lawful revolution was born."
There is no such thing a 'lawful revolution'. Go pick up a gun someday and walk into a public building and tell them you have a right to 'lawful revolution'. Every revolution will be combatted by the government by every means possible, and every revolution will be said to be justified by those taking part in it. That's the same as its always been.
"You see I take for granted the rights I have always had."
I don't understand this or all the stuff that comes after it. It sounds like you are simply defining your own rights and saying that others have no right to change or threaten them. That's the fantasy world. You're rights are dictated by Ottawa and Fredericton, simple as that. You may not like them, most people don't-when they work against them, but that's reality.
"The UN is for misfits and dreamers. Always was always will be."
Most countries abide by the regulations of the UN. Those who serve there are selected from the countries to represent them. Countries are put under pressure to abide by declarations, however, they can't enforce them.
That's all changed now because the US has said flat out that they run the world and will not listen to the UN. That the UN can 'join us or become a debating society' in words of Colin Powell. Go to the UN website and look at all the departments, I dont mean 'you' because your opinion is already made up, but if anybody besides two people are still reading this then go check out their website and see all the 'stuff' they get involved in. If countries will not abide by the rule of law though, thats not the UN's fault, but that country's leader.
"In January 1916, Parliament passed the first conscription laws (compulsory enrollment) ever passed in Britain."
I said canadians had no choice but to go to war. I didnt' say that every canadian had to become a soldier. When the government declares war then it officially takes over industry and governs society minutely. That means changes in labour practices and social behaviour. There are serious restrictions on freedoms in such cases as well. A specific canadian may not have been forced to go to battle, but they have to live under war conditions, so "canadians had no choice but to go to war".
2;18 returns: "Every revolution will be combatted by the government by every means possible, and every revolution will be said to be justified by those taking part in it. That's the same as its always been."
2:18 you have totally lost it. History has recorded revolutions that were not treated that way at all. Revolutions come in many shapes and forms. Only but a few have had the people rise up forcefully where then a form of government used every possible means available them to stop said revolution. I can think of a few revolutions where there was not even a single shot fired. There is a revolution taking place right now right here on the internet we are using to debate these issues. And as if I never asked you to keep future use of guns out of this conversation you anyways just feel it so neccessary as to suggest someone take one to a shopping mall on a Sunday afternoon and cause mayhem. Should I be concerned that you state you recognise me through my writings and therefore know where I live and work? Are you planning something you wish to share with the people on the internet? If so I will stop now chatting with you on this blog. Not likely. You'd need two chain techs and bike mechanic to help you get mobile in the event of an untoward outburst on your part. And then like your aguements put forth so far the wheels would then fall off.
On one side there is those that believe in tree huggin peace lovin everything pie in the sky. And if the world were so, that would be nice. On the other side is those that are so jaded they accept that nothing nice is going to happen unless those that try to live their utopian dream are whacked with a stick until they understand human nature. That second group is usaully referred to by different names. But I believe they, those groups, are now fundamentalists irregardless of the religion they choose to accept as their's and thusly "the one and only" religion. And take it with good heart my book learned friend, there is more than two people reading this blog.
Which brings us to this fine quote of yours that will presumably see you add even more letters after your name: "I dont mean 'you' because your opinion is already made up" referring to me, and possibly me alone. My opinion is already made up? Why thank you very much. I see not why to change an opinion when an opinion can be backed up! Hows about yers? Your opinion? Oh wait which opinion would that be now? Currently you accept that the UN does not run the world and that yes the USofA does. And other countries get to have a say in how the USofA does indeed run this world we live in. Correct? The world we live in now? Pardon me but isn't that the opinion I expressed earlier? Not only are you a policy wonk of the first degree you have the most important characteristic that the others such as you hold dear. You, as they reflexively do, waffle when questioned on your predetermined beliefs that can be shattered so easily if held to the fire in a forthright manner. As to why you would believe such crap, as an example: what you earlier stated as fact but now accept as incorrect - coming out of the UN in the first place - is something only the education system of today could explain.
Now I apologise if I misunderstood your earlier reference to canadaians [sic] having no choice but to go to war. But now that you put it a new way - and my how your explanations change from time to time - might I add that Canada was not then the Canada that is now. The rural population was the majority. I cannot see how their lives were changed so drastically either labour wise or in a social manner so much that they would even take notice, (except of course due to the missing of a family member actually doing service, as mentioned above) let alone consider themselves "at war". If you believe they had "no other choice but to go to war" by continuing on with what they had been doing all along, I guess I will take your word for it. Unless ofcourse you accept that Canada is at war now, and you just sit there typing away as if nothing has changed in your day to day life. That is afterall your opinion and as anyone can see now that changes like the weather.
If there was actually something to debate I would, but the above makes no sense. Just because you jump to conclusions about what you think I mean doesnt mean I have changed my mind.
Thats a pretty broad definition of "revolution", that can mean anything. If thats the case then revolutions have never really stopped, which means its next to impossible to define them. People drinking more coffee is a "revolution". Theres a "revolution" in mens clothing. THeyre everywhere!
And Canada is not the Canada it was? According to the BNA Act Canada is the same country. Oh gee, you mean things have changed? Wow, isnt that profound, I had absolutely no idea!
Just because you havent the brains to understand doesnt mean anything has changed. Canadians had no choice but to go to war is what I said, and thats fact genius. If you cant be civil I see no reason why I should be. And Ill talk about guns all i want, its a free country, if your so paranoid that you see conspiracies everywhere thats your problem.
And heres a tip, people who can quote the year of Runnymeade have no business calling others on "book learning". Guess what? It aint the 1200"s anymore.
I enjoy a good debate, but this one isnt a debate anymore, go back and debate your books.
the only reason Canada is at war is because we are followers we have to do whatever we are told to do because we are to chicken or maybe lazy to ban together and say to our government enough is enough do as we want not as others wants
Now that that poster (6:47) has left and I have said good-bye and seeya later. Does anybody know when Newfoundland joined confederation?
Sore Loser stated: "And Canada is not the Canada it was? According to the BNA Act Canada is the same country"
And a good hello to any military folk still out there. Aren't you glad "None of those [the wars listed by poster: start time 4:29 and then concluded: depart time 6:47] had to do with canadian freedom, most of which came after the second world war and came about because of the extensive work of the United Nations."
Those soldiers that fought and died in those wars had nothing to do with the freedoms we enjoy today.
Yes Sir we have our freedoms because of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
But I am willing to wager that that poster is still reading along and, just because of that I will include a most recent revolution (but unlike his references to his ideas of revolutions this revolution I mention has had nothing to do with Britney, Paris and, that woman from Herbie The Love Bug II flashing their privates) where I think there was no blood shed:
I didn't say I left the debate, I said there was nothing left TOO debate. I really have no idea what the fascination is with bicycles, so can't really comment.
If that's what is meant by a revolution, then that somewhat makes sense. However, if we look at the Orange Revolution then it is NOT 'lawful'. Take for example where the students staged a 'sit in' at public buildings. That is not lawful, however, in that case the people had enough broad support, even from the military and police, that such laws weren't enforced. In Canada people stage sit ins all the time. The police are usually called.
Unlawful revolutions happen all the time. They happened in Bosnia and they happened in Venezuela and Bolivia. That's always been the problem-at what point is a GOVERNMENT not legitimate? When a certain percentage declare a government action not legitimate, then 'unlawful revolutions' occur-meaning civil disobedience.
For some though 'disobedience' means staging a sit in, for some it means wearing placards, and for some it means blowing themselves up with their enemies. For many it means taking up arms. There is a lot of debate about which is more effective, so long as a critical mass can be reached, less violent revolutions such as in Ukraine, or Bosnia or Venezuela have succeeded, but the people don't know these things beforehand.
Rosa Parks was also 'breaking the law'. Governments can make all kinds of crooked laws. For a lot of people like the above, the gun control law is such a case, for others the ATV law is such a case.
To be blunt. There are no such things as 'lawful revolutions'. However, there are such things as 'justified revolutions', but people have different ideas of what that means because different people have different interests at stake. But those in power always seek to control them, and in Ukraine and Bosnia, if those in charge could have kept control they would have changed things if they could.
As for Canada, like I said, the BNA Act made Canada. That means its the same country, otherwise it would have a different name. I didn't say 'nothing has changed'. Every day somehting changes, because somebody left the country do we say 'its a different country now, Bob has left'. Of course not. Quebec could separate and there would still be 'Canada', until the federal government doesn't exist.
Technically Canada is much bigger as well, since Canada was the first country to declare the 200 KM limit on the ocean. That doesn't mean its a different country. There is also a new charter from 1982, that doesnt' mean it wasn't canada in 1981, it just means it was different.
To challenge two other points mentioned above, the Taliban did not declare a jihad on the US. It declared one on Russia back before it was the government, and although it gave backing to Al Queda and Bin Laden, that didn't extend to declaring a jihad on anybody. Technically, while the Taliban were 'in charge', Afghanistan was still in state of civil war.
The other point is that if the above does some research its been a lot longer than 50 years since the majority of canadians lived rurally, go look it up, the last time I checked, the year that more canadians lived in cities than rurally was in the late 1800's.
I'm glad to see the above poster has changed his mind, thats the mark of intelligence:) Although he doesn't have to do a complete 180, I didn't say that soldiers had NOTHING to do with our freedoms. If the war was lost who knows what would have happened, and it was mostly those soldiers who returned home who fought to enforce those rights, and fought to get the UN to declare them in the first place.
I always get a kick out of the CBC 'moment' commercial about low income housing where they make it look like some sobby politician saw all the poor hurt soldiers and was moved to compassion and had pity on them enough to start low income housing. The truth is that this was being fought for almost as soon as soldiers came back, many of whom found that they had better living conditions when they were overseas.
Glad to see you're down to picking at grammar, its good to see that your learning the error of your ways.
Perhaps some education on how the UN works is in order. You see, when the UN makes decisions, it forms committee's who come up with 'resolutions'. Countries then vote on the resolutions. They also have what are called treaties. Countries are not bound by treaties unless they sign them.
Many nations didn't initially support the Declaration of Human Rights, but most did. Some of the things they changed around. For example, Canada and the US fought for, and won, the change in the definition of 'genocide'. Many indiginous groups around the world, and many countries, wanted 'genocide' to be not only the killing of people, but the eradication of 'cultures'. This way, native canadians and americans could have found more international support for their claims that the canadian and american governmeents were committing 'genocide'. This, of course, was at the peak of the 'residential schools' scandal, where governments were forcefully 're-educating' natives.
That is not the UN's fault that it was not used, that is Canada and the US's fault. Many native groups were lobbying for that inclusion, and many of those were soldiers, as not often noted, natives had more soldiers per capita than any ethnicity. They fought for the country and returned to see the government treating their people even worse.
This was the same in the states. Soldiers returned back to the south to find circumstances far worse than when they were soldiers. Many stayed in Europe where people were far more integrated and less racist, and the ones that returned home began the fight for civil rights. One soldier would note that he "wished Hitler had won" when he came home. One of the biggest instigators of the civil rights movement was the murder of two black men and their dates. One of whom was a decorated soldier who survived the war. As one person noted "he was a good nigger when he was here, but then he come home all uppity". Thats a quote by the way.
In Canada it wasn't far different. Obviously the people with brains out there know we aren't talking about phycical fighting, however, many protests got very physical.
While its true that it was mostly europe and asia who pushed the Declaration of Human Rights, because the governments of Canada and the US came out of the war quite well. Like the first world war the government had gotten rid of most of the 'troublemakers' from the labour movement and the superfluous population that had no jobs. All the wartime restrictions meant most of the labor movement was marginalized.
After the war it was very different. Go look at voter turnout in those years. People were very active in politics and politicians heard about it. Plus, 'party politics' had much less sway, and committee's had far more power. So the government had to pay at least some attention to what people were saying.
Then, like now, the overwhelming number of people were supporters of human rights, in fact they wanted governments to go even further. However, after the war much of industry had been bought up by integrated with american corporations, and the last thing they wanted was human rights to extend to 'labour rights'.
The cold war started virtually right after the second world war, and why it happened is stated openly by industry in the states. By that time the always warned against 'military economy' was in full swing and they had no intention of letting that stop. So human rights became quite a struggle. WHen Saskatchewan elected Tommy Douglas the federal government really began to take notice, and by the sixties thats when the 'fight' for civil rights was really getting popular support.
However, that took years, and you can see that the biggest gains came in the seventies. There were low income housing programs, co-operative movements, etc. That came about because of the 'fight' for human rights.
WHile the UN doesn't have authority to 'force' countries to do things, they do have 'pressure' that can be put on countries to abide by the regulations they have signed. Back then there was also a much better media system so people had an idea of what the UN was doing. Today, people only hear about the UN when somebody is griping. Most people can't even name who Canada's representative at the UN is.
So that's in general how soldiers once again 'fought' for rights on their return home. I always get a kick out of that movie version of the fifties as if all the soldiers returned home, got married, their wives left their jobs and started families and everybody sat around all evening mowing lawns and watching television. That's pretty far from the case.
Welcome back 3:49 You don't have to say anything about what happened. I sometimes go for a good long run too when I want to try to explain myself beter when things aren't going, ah, well. I wouldn't say my way. I'll say your way. 'Cause I'm just that kind of writer; give a break to a younger one once in awhile is what I always say. Some windy last night wasn't it. Well you have come half way on admitting you should have been more explanatory on your first post so I decided I would have a look into the work that the UN has done in the last while.
Announcement 2003/12/12 Paul Martin junior accepts the flag that was flown at half staff on his father's death while being sworn in as Canada's prime minister. Former industry minister and leadership hopeful Allan Rock becomes Canada's ambassador to the United Nations.
Announcement July 17,2005 More than any other individual, most deem Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control (CGC), as the driving force behind the successful passage of Canada's Firearms Registration and Future Confiscation of Firearms Act. A professor of justice studies at Toronto’s Ryerson University, Cukier co-founded the CGC in 1991 with Heidi Rathjen [who hasn't been seen since she went in for surgery to remove her lisp] to crusade for more stringent gun registration with the future aim being confiscation of every firearm once all firearms and firearm's owners in Canada were registered. In her presentation to the United Nations Ms. Cukier joined hands with Allan Rock as she quoted from her most recent book. "We know we can not eat an elephant in one setting but we have learned by our experience in Canada that it is possible to register restrict and, then confiscate every privately owned firearm in the world." Ms. Cukier co-authored GLOBAL GUN EPIDEMIC with Victor W. Sidel while on sabbatical from Ryerson University. With a grant of 250,000 canadian dollars from the Safety Council of Canada, Mr. Sidel and Ms. Cukier were able to bring their book to print and had enough money left over to address the United Nations on their current success in Canada and outline their future plan to rid the world of privately owned arms. Mr. Emille Therien, President of The Canadian Safety Council, was in attendance for the momentous speech. Mr. Therien took the occasion to announce a further 100,000 canadian dollars to assist in getting the word out to the member states' representatives that were not in attendance, due to the fact that it was Twoonie Tueday and hey, just luvin it.
Announcement 16/02/2006/ 0700 hours EST Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that Allan Rock, Canada’s Ambassador to the United Nations, will leave his post in the summer.
Announcement 16/02/2006/06 0800 hours EST Letter from United Nations Deputy Minister Harder to Allan Rock I am writing further to the announcement this morning of the nomination of Mr. John McNee to succeed you as Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations in New York. As you are aware, the Prime Minister received your letter of resignation some days ago and has asked that I convey his gratitude to you for agreeing to stay on in New York until the end of June so that your work on registering restricting and confiscating every privately owned firearm in the world can carry on as usual until that time. Mr. McNee will begin his assignment in July. I want to thank you for the exemplary work you, Wendy, Emille, Andy and, that one with the lisp (where ever did she go anyways), have accomplished during your two billion canadian dollar spending spree under the previous federal Liberal governments in Ottawa that was all for nought. Some would say two billion canadian dollars wasted is a heck of a lot of money but we here at the UN say "peanuts" to that. I mean really, how much could that be in $US? With all good wishes Sincerely, Peter V. Harder
Announcement 04/07/06 Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that John McNee is now Canada's Permanent Representative to the United Nations. He represents Canada in the General Assembly and before the Security Council, and works with the UN’s 191 other member states to advance a variety of Canadian priorities. He assumed his post on July 1, 2006.
Announcement 2007-01-09 Today, Canada's New Government is investing in two important programs that strengthen reconstruction in Afghanistan and ensure the Afghan people can live safely and prosper in a democratic and free environment “Today, Canada’s New Government is providing two important contributions for Afghanistan that will improve the lives of Afghan women and ensure critical infrastructure is developed in Kandahar,” said John McNee “Our contribution to UNICEF helps to address critical issues facing Afghan women: maternal death in childbirth, and illiteracy. And our significant investment in the reconstruction program will ensure the Kandahar region gets the infrastructure it needs sooner.”
Announcement 26 February 2007 Canada's New Government substantially boosts support to development efforts in Afghanistan. The funding, to be disbursed this year, on top of Canada’s annual allocation of $100 million for development activities in Afghanistan, will flow to five priority areas: governance and development ($120 million); counter-narcotics ($30 million); policing ($20 million); de-mining ($20 million); and road construction ($10 million).
March 4th, 2007 Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced $200 million in additional funding on top of all previously announced funding for reconstruction and development activities in Afghanistan. The announcement was made following a meeting with Christopher Alexander, the Deputy Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General for Afghanistan.
Well I guess there is being some progress made in the UN after all. I just thought you would be one of those writers that would swing off on a tangent somewhere and turn this debate in to a "I have the right to own a gun" rant. And a "Thank God the Liberals in Canada aren't running Ottawa no more" like kinda thing!
I wonder if anybody knows what ever happened to Wendy Cukier Alan Rock and Emile Therein. We all know Hon. Andy "I don't recall: what airplane trip" Scott only has two or three more years to go before he gets his full Ottawa MP's pension and most likely Sean "Honker" Graham will create some well paying position here in the province for him until then anyways. Oh no I just thought of something: Honker at next election time will run on his record of bringing back expat New Brunswickers to work here again in their home province. Dear Lord, say it ain't so! So Andy will most likely never be held accountable for the over $2,000,000,000 wasted on the registry he blindly followed Federal Party Lines, (unlike the federal representative in the registry's riding saw the good sense to disregard) to help set up. Last I heard of Emile Therein was the time I saw him on TV and he was saying something about Rottweillers and PitBulls and Rottwiellers/PitBulls crosses should not be banned just because they ate four or five toddlers in Toronto one summer. He went on to say it was the owner's faults not the dogs. ****aside: If you aren't too distracted with the day to day business of yours there Charles could you check and see if that Therein fellow might happen to be a Quebecer by any chance can you?**** Now Wendy Cukier is a different story all together. First she blamed the average gun owner for all the problems in the world. Then she blamed the police after all the laws she connived so foolishly to have passed in the Liberal Parliament and then rubber stamped in the Liberal Senate proved useless when that third shooting in Quebec made headlines. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if she is using her tenure to spread her works Internationally. Most likely she is over in North Korea trying to get "Dear Leader" to register his nucular bombs. Yeah that's it. Watch out Kim, she'll take them if you fall for that old "if it saves just one life, it's worth it" routine.
Interesting post, that saves me a lot of work and seems pretty much to support my claim. You're biggest argument above seems to be a UN support for getting rid of private guns, of course the feds are doing that, the liberals brought it in with the support of most police, and at the time it was painted as a 'rural' vs 'urban' debate, which is sort of true.
But you'll probably find more people support getting rid of firearms than don't, even the Harpies have given up on trying to resurrect the gun laws.
The gun registry is an interesting example, so since the above poster seems to be posting articles supporting my claims, then I'll go on one of my tangents and talk about it. As regards the cost overruns this is very interesting for New Brunswick because the cost overruns were due to a particular cost sharing mechanism called a 'public private partnership'.
Specifically, Ross Perot's computer company was hired to implement it, which then went on to milk the government. Since PPP's were quite new in those days the government didn't have any of the cheques and balances in place.
That lead to all kinds of financial calamities. THey bought a computer program that was no good, leased back computers that they had already purchased and on and on.
This is relevant because we're once again back in the state where NB will no doubt be pushing more PPP's on the public.
As for Afghanistan, wouldn't it be nice if the feds put some of that kind of money into New Brunswick infrastructure. However, funds have gone to those programs before-and diverted from those programs before.
For example, last spring there was a much vaunted program to increase the water supply, the media cheered it and polls showed a little more support for actions in Afghanistan. Turns out though that what the media didn't say was that the water was being sold by the canadian military to other countries who were serving in the country. It wasn't going to benefit Afghani's at all.
But the UN at least has a goal in mind-namely stability. The US has a goal, namely protecting corporate ownership of the pipeline. That's all they care about and couldn't care less how many Afghanis' blow themselves up or what the casualties are.
Notice how they maintain that they won't even TALK to the Taliban. That's common in war, Germany probably would have surrended long before had they been given the option. But the General's and the corporations don't worry about such things, its not as if THEY are going to get blown up. Most of them never go anywhere near the place.
Keep in mind that I never said that the UN was the be all and end all, only that they are better than the alternative. Considerable pressure is being mounted to change the way the UN operates, and if canadians ever heard of it then they may perhaps take part in the lobbying, although some canadian organizations are. That's to get rid of the security council altogether and the right of veto and make the UN more democratic.
It is mainly the developing world that is making those demands, and as Venezuela gets more money and makes more demands then there may be some change. Canadians no longer play the role they used to in that respect, we are just americans to most third worlders now.
I'm not going to post again until you have a posting moniker. If you have a posting moniker somewhere else that could be this one for you here at Oldmaison or a new one: choice is yours. "duanarchy said... fight the canadian forces" is already taken. What the heck is a post modonarchist post leftist post anarchist nowadaysanyways? I'll tell you what I think that poster comments: https://www2.blogger.com/ comment.g?blogID=3689341771913833762 &postID=7334006285375166460 That commenter posts as somebody not as fortunate as you 9:19 AM and that poster won't even admit to ownering a two wheeeler. Must be nice to have four wheels is all I can say. Two upright and, two for trainering. And that blogger posts they find my posts "more interestering" than your posts! Well 9:19 AM how about it? Got a moniker for this blog?
Hey have you seen this site? It details a section of the human rights declaration form the UN.
http://committeetoprotectbloggers.blogspot.com/
is devoted to the protection of bloggers around the world. In a host of countries around the world bloggers are routinely imprisoned for their activities. The blogging community should not leave the responsibility for their well-beingin others’ hands.
The Committee has four primary spheres of activity.
CPB will serve as a clearinghouse for information on incarcerated members of our community, as well as those whose lives have been taken from them because of their enthusiasm for the free exchange of information that blogging allows.
CPB will serve as a pressure group to force unrecalcitrant governments to free imprisoned bloggers, and make restitution for tortured and murdered ones.
CPB will bring to bear the formidable communicative power of the blogosphere to keep pressure on governments to stop
CPB will act as direct agents in negotiations to free imprisoned bloggers.
We are driven by our enthusiasm for knowledge, by our affection for the possibilities of blogging, by the love we have for our fellow bloggers and by our belief in the free exchange of ideas.
We are guided by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The blog has several posts up on bloggers around the world that are under persecution.
Article 19 of the Declaration states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
29 comments:
this may be appealing to Generation X box but we're not moved by this blatant call for violence.
They should at least be honest about it- Kill with the canadian armed forces or Die with the canadian armed forces.
fyi, we used to be known as a peacekeeping force.now we are not.simple
fight the canadian forces
Hey Charles,
I left you a decent comment regarding how our Canadian Forces fought and died, not as peacemakers, but as warriors. They died in the First and Second World War, and the Korean War, to ensure you have the right to express yourself freely. They were not peacemakers in these wars, they were full blown killers and warriors. That's what soldiers do in wartime.
Rather than publish my comment, you've published a variety of comments putting down the Canadian Forces, including one commenter who wishes to: Fight the Canadian Forces.
Charles, there are 42,000 Canadian bodies in France, Germany, Holland,
Italy, Hong Kong, and North Africa. These bodies were once young men like me who gave up their lives for
us. They weren't peacemakers. They were soldiers, fighting a real war, against a very real threat of totalitarianism and fascism.
They gave up their lives so people could: Fight the Canadian Forces. May they rest in peace.
During the first world war canadians had no choice but to go to war, and it was a completely senseless war that had absolutely nothing to do with canadian freedoms.
The second world war was a bit different, but once again it had nothing to do with freedom. Hitler had zero interest in North America, mostly because Canada and the US were among the biggest suppliers of the Hitler war buildup and most canadian and american corporations made fortunes off the war right up to the point war was declared.
The Korean war was much the same, and canadians played very little part in that, and it was after korea that Canada told the US to screw themselves when they got involved in Vietnam because canadian politicians listened to the public who knew damn well it was simply american aggression.
None of those had to do with canadian freedom, most of which came after the second world war and came about because of the extensive work of the United Nations, specifically the Declaration of Human Rights. That's when canadians finally got some rights, and once again those are being taken away.
Read some history, canadian history is brutal towards canadians. Its a history of attacks against average canadians by their own government. Don't take my word for it, go research it yourself. After the first world war there was a Canadian war, against the men who came home from fighting. After the second world war with the UN's help and the canadian public making demands the canadian government had to make some conscessions, although not nearly as many as canadians demanded.
The Taliban never declared war on anybody, so that can't even be compared to the two world wars. In the first Canada joined because it was part of the british empire, in the second it joined because Germany declared war on Britain, which was an ally. Nobody ever declared war on the US, they are the aggressors and therefore the more accurate comparison is that they are the germans and these arab country's are defending themselves.
Freedom is only rarely fought for on foreign soil, its far more often a struggle by people against their own governments.
anonymous at 4:29
Oh where to begin.
I know, maybe firstly you could learn to capitalize the letters when they should be upper case.
Secondly where is there a reference to your statement that Canadians "had no choice but to go to war" in the First World War?
Thirdly could you please give us a list of these companies and corporations in North America that supplied the Nazi war machine prior the Second World War. I realize according you the list will be long as "most" would mean more than half, so just name the biggest five due to space limitations.
Forthly the Korea War was fought with the blood spilled of men and women from many Countries. Canada was not there at the behest of the USofA.
And do you really believe that the UN had anything to do with the freedoms we enjoy now? Maybe you could do a little reading of your own. Might I suggest you start at the Magna Charta and work forward?
I think you will find that the Taliban did in fact declare war on somebody.
And one last point that I think you can prove for yourself by doing a simple google search is the recorded fact that states that Japan declared war on the USofA.
You end off with this:
"Freedom is only rarely fought for on foreign soil, its far more often a struggle by people against their own governments."
Other than the Magna Charta reference mentioned earlier, (and there was very little blood even then spilled, but it was indeed a fight on local terrain) I think that most fighting for freedom took place on foriegn soil.
Could you be referring to peaceful protest and civil disobedience on a grand scale, with your final wrap up?
Fighting to the death is quite unique and it usually is more severe than that.
Actually, Anon is correct. Canadians have rarely directly fought for their own freedom on foreign soil. They fought directly for the freedom of others. The French, Belgians, Dutch, Danes, Luxembourgers, and Norweigans all can thank their freedom to the 42,000 Canadian bodies lying overseas. That's why they still celebrate the Liberation in those nations. That's why 85 year old Canadians, forgotten in their own country, become instant celebrities in small town Holland. They Remember.
Canadians also fought and died in South Korea against communist aggression. Don't buy the bill of goods being sold. Korea was not an American aggressive war. Let's not forget the invasion of the south by
135,000 North Korean troops. The United Nations, the same folks who brought us our human rights apparently, fought that war. Some will claim Canada may only have played a small part, although 516 families across this country would beg to differ.
These Canadians did not fight and die for our freedom directly. They did something even better. They fought and died for the freedom of their fellow man. Over sixty years of liberal democracy in Europe is their legacy. The existence of the
United Nations, and indeed, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is their legacy. You can pin the blame on the Canadian Army, the Americans, or whoever you want for these results. They'll gladly take it.
It wasn't until the Statute of Westminister in 1931 that Canada had the authority to join or refuse to join Great Britain in war.
What is now Inco is the best example, you can read all about it here:
http://www.shunpiking.com
/ol0207/0207-AN-inco-nazi.htm
As the world's leading staples producer (then at least) many many commodities found their way to Germany, sometimes by proxy, but in many cases it was well known.
For the states, many of whose directors were canadians (the canadian Minister of Industry was the american CD Howe), the most obvious example is Ford, which set up extensive manufacturing plants which built many of the vehicles.
Most obvious of course, such an efficient form of genocide would not have been possible without the work of IBM, which made its first fortune with the 'punch card system' that let germans keep track of all its victims.
The current President's father was a keen supporter of Hitler, as were most americans, he was Time Magazine's 'man of the year'. One of the reasons is he succeeded in doing what the 'elite' of the states had failed to do, which was turn a representative democracy into a fascist state. In the states there had just been an attempt by financiers to turn the US into a military dictatorship, something not widely known but easily researched.
Any of those are easy to find, just go to google and type in world war 2 and 'trade'.
As for rights, the Magna Carta was signed in 1215 and had little to do with individual human rights. What it did was establish a sort of 'rule of law', which was already pretty much in place. It did not even place limits on the power of monarchy (though many think it did). However, this was only even recognized in some parts of europe, not worldwide.
If it were true that the Magna Carta had something to do with human rights we wouldn't have seen things like the spanish inquisition or the irish genocide-or most obviously the north and south american genocides. The middle ages weren't exactly a time noted for 'individual human rights'.
Just go read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Of course in most cases people don't even know how the UN works because there is no coverage of it. For those that don't, their website lists all their resolutions, these are voted on and become binding.
For the other comments, I didn't mention Japan so I don't know where that comes from, the Taliban never declared war on anybody, perhaps the above post refers to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, which the Taliban fought off.
For Korea, while the UN supported South Korea it was primarily a war that the US pushed forward, in fact it wasn't even technically a 'war' but a 'police action'. The UN met at the behest of Truman, and all forces were under MacAurthor. As mentioned, after that Canada's involvement in asia was non existent. It's true that 26,000 canadians served there, I didnt mean to imply that it was not a substancial operation, but only that it was an US operation and the last canadian asian one.
Lastly, I don't mean just civil disobedience, but quite ACTIVE disobedience. Go all over the world and you can see that most of the people's of the world are marginalized by their own government.
In Canada that includes natives, the homeless, the poor, the working poor, those who care about the environment,etc. It certainly isn't like other countries where the police and military kill their own populations, but its a question of degrees. The examples are so numerous that I don't have time to list them here. The only point I'll leave with is that canadians have next to no power to write legislation, that's done by somebody else. Virtually no canadians feel represented by their federal government, in fact far more people voted against the Prime Minster than voted for him, in fact here in NB the majority don't even support the guy with the power to do whatever he wants, but voted for the conservatives.
A very basic 'right' is to be able to control what happens to their society, a right canadians don't have. Being able to choose on of two people to make all the decisions is not 'control', as is obvious in NB where both parties say essentially the same thing.
Rob mentions a different issue, and that is fighting for those in other countries, but that's not what is being discussed.
Since 'we' were the aggressors here, then it doesn't follow that we are somehow fighting for the 'freedom' of Afghani's. In fact, if they even TRY to get freedom they are called 'terrorists'.
This is not world war 2 we're talking about. This is the US declaring war against a country because they felt that they were harboring a fugitive. No doubt there are plenty of fugitives from other countries hiding in the states, but none have declared war or started bombing.
More importantly, the 'freedom' of Afghani's isn't even an issue for Canada-just go read the mission plan. Canada is part of a 'security force', in the words of General Hillier, they are there to 'kill people'.
WE are not there to build schools or to enhance their democracy. In fact, more than a quarter of the representatives in their government are responsible for their worst crimes.
Notice that Afghan's simply have no choice in the matter. It's a simple thing to have SOME democracy, all they have to do is let the people vote in a referendum as to whether they want us there or not.
Moreover, human rights abuses aren't even investigated by canadians, although as we've seen sometimes they are committed by them. People would do well to remember Somalia, people with good intentions can respond to war in many ways, often nasty.
People should remember that nobody says 'do nothing', they simply say, don't uphold a puppet government that is currently fostering the same criminal environment that existed in the nineties which led to the rise of the taliban. There was so much crime that the taliban got huge amounts of support. For women, when the choice is between getting raped or killed, the tradeoff to wearing a burka and being accompanied by a male family member is an easy one to make.
Currently, we are back where it was in the nineties, with massive government corruption and tribal law, the same conditions as before which made Afghans support the taliban, the difference now is that allied forces work together to make sure taliban can't retake the country, all while the pipeline gets built for american and british corporations.
So comparisons to Korea or World War Two are not apt. The best comparison is that WE are now 'North Korea' and 'Germany' and inflicting aggression first on other countries. The question then becomes, how long before those victimized find enough allies to make us aggressors go the way of nazi germany.
Most of the world already know we are in the wrong and won't have anythign to do with the area. This is especially obvious in Europe, those countries mentioned above in Europe who owe their freedom partly to canadians know aggression when they see it, because they've been on the recieving end.
Well I must thank the participants here so far for this wonderful chance to have a blog locally - and as some are discussing in another on this site - good can come from opinion sharing.
Anon at 4:29 PM comes back at 9:40 AM. Much better explanation of their points is seen the second time out for sure. But I remind the writer that their facts are not as impressive after the general references in their first post. And is it so much to ask of a commenter to show if not respect for, atleast a modicum of decorum for, our fallen and in some little way they could atleast show that by finding the shift key for big C Canadian? Apparently so, which leads this poster to believe that with that obvious slur repeated once more the writer at 9:40 AM is a left leaning policy wonk smitten with the Grand Mother of all Policy Wonks "The UN".
The UN is a corrupt pool of misfits and dreamers. For example 9:40 AM takes glee in the fact that Henry Ford was a nasty Anti-Semite (and the evidence is there that good old Henry disliked most people of colour, not so much religious preference, and he was inclusive to all in his hating of both Jews and the others that comprise the Semites) and for that matter a large chunk of the business class prior the second world war that were in America being also alike in manner. Yet by pumping up the UN the writer seems selective once more in their take on the bunch that make a living holding down a job in New York. Can the poster possibly explain the actions of gutter punk "Coffee Annan" and his little dealings with his favorite son?
How about Syria sitting at the table remarking on "Peace"?
But these are things that Gun Banners always overlook.
And make no mistake about it the only human right that matters is the right of a person to fight to the death to defend themselves and their families if they are part of one. Oh yes let's trot out the magic heritage moment and bring fellow Canadians in for a whirl. There was that Prime Minister what's his name, that convinced the world over that an actor [Thompson] could stand between two peoples on Cyprus and all will sleep well at night. And then there is that peace loving wonk that made up this great big list of rights that would be oh so nice, but never will be, in this - the real world.
How many speeds do you have on yer bike there 9:40 AM? Eighteen. If so it would appear your writing age corresponds nicely.
Just as Japan declared war on the USofA prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbour so did the Taliban declare Jihad on America prior to 9/11. You, like most immediately after Pearl Harbour seem to not know the same is true, of 9/11.
"During the first world war canadians [sic] had no choice but to go to war"
Looks really swell, eh 9;40 AM, but it is not true. You do save face somewhat by reworking your earlier comment to make it look as if your point was "Canada" had no choice but to go to war.
"If it were true that the Magna Carta had something to do with human rights we wouldn't have seen things like the spanish inquisition or the irish genocide-or most obviously the north and south american genocides. The middle ages weren't exactly a time noted for 'individual human rights'."
Is that right 9:40 AM?
So let me see if I can connect with your line of thought here and put it in perspective.
How about something really local:
Andy Scott knows that weapons do not kill people. He then votes for and endorses on behalf of his constituents, into force, a bill (C-68) in Ottawa that is designed to disarm the peoples of this country. Except of course, but for the military and police, which is exlained away by his cronies Alan Rock and Wendy Cukier as something that is better for society as a whole.
Hmmm: Police and Army good. Society bad!
It wasn't firearms that were used to exterminate a large chunk of the First Nations here in the Americas. It was the introduction of diseases from the old world that accomplished that. How much longer before Andy Scott joins Alan Rock and Wendy Cukier at your marvelous defender of human rights - The UN? Stock yer fanny pack and get on da bike.
I guess what I am trying to say is that if by us going backwards for a short time under the previous federal Liberals in our rights to defend ourselves from powers of the State that are allowed to maintain their weapons (whatever they may be over the course of history, and they do change from rock in a sling and so forth, so try not to turn this into a laser beam finger pointer rant, in the future thank you very much) and as you see it the Magna Charta was just a little insignificant document.
Hey look over there. See those starving inhabitants in that far away Country? Why don't you go over and comfort them with a little piece of paper that states that they have the right to food.
What's that? "Coffee Annan" and his boy done took the money that was slated for relief.
"The only point I'll leave with is that canadians [sic] have next to no power to write legislation, that's done by somebody else."
Couldn't of said it better myself 9:40 AM.
Couldn't have tried to put it more simply for you either. You let The UN write their little legislation and have it passed amongst themselves. You let Alan Rock try to jam it down our throats with the help of lackies such as Andy Scott with their Wendy Cukier in tow.
You keep dreaming of pie in the sky and myself and others will try to fight to the end to stop that foolishness that those do so practice.
I recognize that writer! I'll just comment on the points that I actually understand.
There's no doubt that the UN has problems, but whatever problem people have with Kofi Annan, he hasn't been the President forever, and has very little actual power. For bureaucratic SNAFU's there's nobody like the US of A.
Most of the resolutions of the UN are controlled by the US, not some martian bureaucrats. The media never covers that though, but take a look at Rwanda, it was the US who held back the UN from calling Rwanda a 'genocide'. In cases of genocide the UN is forced to act, so while people blame the 'faceless, gutless UN', the media doesn't cover the fact that the US sits on the security council and can veto any and all legislation.
I know its pointless to say, but all those implications from the above weren't mine. The Magna Carta was what it was, but it wasn't about individual human rights. And the word 'canadians' isn't supposed to be capitalized.
The point above about Andy Scott proves my point about how rights are usually fought for within countries, whether gun rights, legal rights, etc. Nobody is going to come into canada and fight for those rights for canadians. I don't know what 'fighting' the above is doing, but lots of canadians are fighting for rights in many ways.
But say what you want about the UN, when the choice is between them and the US, I'll take the UN every time. THey might be run by the US but at least other countries have a voice.
To 10:55 stating:
"I recognize that writer! I'll just comment on the points that I actually understand."
Have a look here:
The Assize of Arms of Henry II required every free-man to keep arms suited to his station in life, and to be prepared to fight for the common defense.
Richard I also assized the rights and duties of the nobles and free-men to the king and increased the privileges scutage in the Assize of Arms of 1198.
Then on to Runnymeade 1215.
Section 61 of the Magna Carta provided that if the King (John) did not follow the provisions of the charter, the Barons should have a right to correct the King by force until the King should begin to follow the articles of the charter. Thus the right of lawful revolution was born. This particular portion of the charta has been reaffirmed as were the regulations concerning the bearing of arms and tenure by serjeanty. Statute of Westminster.
Many thanks to whom ever wrote sections of that which have been edited by me. By the way.
You then go on to state:
"The Magna Carta was what it was, but it wasn't about individual human rights."
Maybe you could read this part again. Complete with the preamble provided:
"the free rights and customs that they had always possessed."
"Thus the right of lawful revolution was born."
You see I take for granted the rights I have always had. Individual rights. Rights that were then transformed into text and passed on for some fools to gloss over throughout time. I could go further back in time - to what is commonly referred to as "beliefs" - yet then you possibly and rightly so might understand that that was pointless on my part to bring in to this discussion, and therefore it will not be mentioned here.
Could you be more specific on the parts of my writings that you don't understand? Would they be parts you choose to gloss over without so much as taking the time to consider? What with your blinkered view that most possibly can be seen now by others here, or if not and time does allow and there is more space provided in future on this blog, one by one I will attempt to put the points I am trying to make, down into one syllable words, comprising four word sentences?
But for now I am confused at your latest comment:
You state:
"But say what you want about the UN, when the choice is between them and the US, I'll take the UN every time. They might be run by the US but at least other countries have a voice."
Well gee golly. I can "say what I want" can I?
Why are you so sure on your choice to take the UN over the USofA? Is it because the USofA might run the organization but at least other countries have a voice?
If so, I will respond that you have in fact just described the world we live in - and not the UN at all.
The USofA runs the world and, other countries, do have a voice. The UN is for misfits and dreamers. Always was always will be.
Oh what the heck you also state:
"I know its pointless to say, but all those implications from the above weren't mine."
As you will, we will start at the top once more.
You stated:
"During the first world war canadians [sic] had no choice but to go to war"
In January 1916, Parliament passed the first conscription laws (compulsory enrollment) ever passed in Britain.
Canada entered the First World War along with Britain in August 1914. Canada did not have in place a policy of conscription -although this was (controversially) changed in time. On January 1, 1918, Conscription officially comes into law in Canada.
On November 11, 1918 Germany signed an armistice with the Allies – the official date of the end of World War One.
How many Canadians saw service that were in effect conscripted and not enlisted by their own voluntary means? answer: 25,000. How many Canadians chose not go to war? answer: More than one for sure.
I found this for you on ebay:
**Old skool raleigh bmx stunt bike with mag wheels.**
C $45.77
Time Left: 3d 14h 30m
Don't forget your cycling helmet. But remember to take it off whilst on the playground equipment!
We can argue about the merits of war or about wars past, the reality is, if you join an army, any army, you are a trained soldier. They don't train you to play chess, they train you to shoot and kill. It's an ARMY. Helloooo. I have family in Afgan as we speak. It is stressful and makes us nervos every day we hear a soldier is injured or killed - but that is what he chose to do with his life.
I don't necessarily agree with them being there but that is irrelevant at this point for my family.
The advertisement should go a long way for recruiting psycho's who want to kill. The reason they can't recruit is because of the fighting and killing. Easy to join an army whne it's all fake, when it's real, no one wants to join - can't say as I blame them but, if you join, you do as your "employer" requests - or you get out and get a civilian job - make your choice.
If I could add to the comment at 10:55 AM
One big reason why there is not enough money to enlist the backlog of hopefuls that want to join the forces is the sham that is contracting out of training to two huge "Lobby" Turned "Training Contractor" companies.
Do a quick search of Calian and Valcom.
Do a scan of past articles in the Oromocto Post-Gazette to see how those companies are selling their (allegedly) corrupt practice that is detailed in the many court battles the two companies are entwined with each other as we write.
But as not to be distracted from my conversation with the one with the bike, I have not the time now to go into that further.
"The Assize of Arms of Henry II required every free-man....be prepared to fight for the common defense."
What that means is that everybody has to be prepared for conscription at a moment's notice. That's hardly 'freedom'. People didn't 'vote' for war.
"Section 61 of the Magna Carta provided that if the King (John) did not follow the provisions of the charter, the Barons should have a right to correct the King by force"
That also has nothing to do with individual rights. Barons and Kings? That simply defines the relationship between the monarchy and the aristocracy, not the people who are 99.999999% of the population.
"the free rights and customs that they had always possessed."
"Thus the right of lawful revolution was born."
There is no such thing a 'lawful revolution'. Go pick up a gun someday and walk into a public building and tell them you have a right to 'lawful revolution'. Every revolution will be combatted by the government by every means possible, and every revolution will be said to be justified by those taking part in it. That's the same as its always been.
"You see I take for granted the rights I have always had."
I don't understand this or all the stuff that comes after it. It sounds like you are simply defining your own rights and saying that others have no right to change or threaten them. That's the fantasy world. You're rights are dictated by Ottawa and Fredericton, simple as that. You may not like them, most people don't-when they work against them, but that's reality.
"The UN is for misfits and dreamers. Always was always will be."
Most countries abide by the regulations of the UN. Those who serve there are selected from the countries to represent them. Countries are put under pressure to abide by declarations, however, they can't enforce them.
That's all changed now because the US has said flat out that they run the world and will not listen to the UN. That the UN can 'join us or become a debating society' in words of Colin Powell. Go to the UN website and look at all the departments, I dont mean 'you' because your opinion is already made up, but if anybody besides two people are still reading this then go check out their website and see all the 'stuff' they get involved in. If countries will not abide by the rule of law though, thats not the UN's fault, but that country's leader.
"In January 1916, Parliament passed the first conscription laws (compulsory enrollment) ever passed in Britain."
I said canadians had no choice but to go to war. I didnt' say that every canadian had to become a soldier. When the government declares war then it officially takes over industry and governs society minutely. That means changes in labour practices and social behaviour. There are serious restrictions on freedoms in such cases as well. A specific canadian may not have been forced to go to battle, but they have to live under war conditions, so "canadians had no choice but to go to war".
There is lots of money to hire soldiers. Go to monster.com, there are hundreds of postings for soldiers.
2;18 returns:
"Every revolution will be combatted by the government by every means possible, and every revolution will be said to be justified by those taking part in it. That's the same as its always been."
2:18 you have totally lost it. History has recorded revolutions that were not treated that way at all. Revolutions come in many shapes and forms. Only but a few have had the people rise up forcefully where then a form of government used every possible means available them to stop said revolution. I can think of a few revolutions where there was not even a single shot fired. There is a revolution taking place right now right here on the internet we are using to debate these issues. And as if I never asked you to keep future use of guns out of this conversation you anyways just feel it so neccessary as to suggest someone take one to a shopping mall on a Sunday afternoon and cause mayhem.
Should I be concerned that you state you recognise me through my writings and therefore know where I live and work? Are you planning something you wish to share with the people on the internet? If so I will stop now chatting with you on this blog. Not likely. You'd need two chain techs and bike mechanic to help you get mobile in the event of an untoward outburst on your part. And then like your aguements put forth so far the wheels would then fall off.
On one side there is those that believe in tree huggin peace lovin everything pie in the sky.
And if the world were so, that would be nice.
On the other side is those that are so jaded they accept that nothing nice is going to happen unless those that try to live their utopian dream are whacked with a stick until they understand human nature. That second group is usaully referred to by different names. But I believe they, those groups, are now fundamentalists irregardless of the religion they choose to accept as their's and thusly "the one and only" religion.
And take it with good heart my book learned friend, there is more than two people reading this blog.
Which brings us to this fine quote of yours that will presumably see you add even more letters after your name:
"I dont mean 'you' because your opinion is already made up" referring to me, and possibly me alone.
My opinion is already made up? Why thank you very much. I see not why to change an opinion when an opinion can be backed up! Hows about yers? Your opinion? Oh wait which opinion would that be now? Currently you accept that the UN does not run the world and that yes the USofA does. And other countries get to have a say in how the USofA does indeed run this world we live in. Correct? The world we live in now?
Pardon me but isn't that the opinion I expressed earlier? Not only are you a policy wonk of the first degree you have the most important characteristic that the others such as you hold dear. You, as they reflexively do, waffle when questioned on your predetermined beliefs that can be shattered so easily if held to the fire in a forthright manner.
As to why you would believe such crap, as an example: what you earlier stated as fact but now accept as incorrect - coming out of the UN in the first place - is something only the education system of today could explain.
Now I apologise if I misunderstood your earlier reference to canadaians [sic] having no choice but to go to war.
But now that you put it a new way - and my how your explanations change from time to time - might I add that Canada was not then the Canada that is now. The rural population was the majority. I cannot see how their lives were changed so drastically either labour wise or in a social manner so much that they would even take notice, (except of course due to the missing of a family member actually doing service, as mentioned above) let alone consider themselves "at war".
If you believe they had "no other choice but to go to war" by continuing on with what they had been doing all along, I guess I will take your word for it.
Unless ofcourse you accept that Canada is at war now, and you just sit there typing away as if nothing has changed in your day to day life. That is afterall your opinion and as anyone can see now that changes like the weather.
If there was actually something to debate I would, but the above makes no sense. Just because you jump to conclusions about what you think I mean doesnt mean I have changed my mind.
Thats a pretty broad definition of "revolution", that can mean anything. If thats the case then revolutions have never really stopped, which means its next to impossible to define them. People drinking more coffee is a "revolution". Theres a "revolution" in mens clothing. THeyre everywhere!
And Canada is not the Canada it was? According to the BNA Act Canada is the same country. Oh gee, you mean things have changed? Wow, isnt that profound, I had absolutely no idea!
Just because you havent the brains to understand doesnt mean anything has changed. Canadians had no choice but to go to war is what I said, and thats fact genius. If you cant be civil I see no reason why I should be. And Ill talk about guns all i want, its a free country, if your so paranoid that you see conspiracies everywhere thats your problem.
And heres a tip, people who can quote the year of Runnymeade have no business calling others on "book learning". Guess what? It aint the 1200"s anymore.
I enjoy a good debate, but this one isnt a debate anymore, go back and debate your books.
the only reason Canada is at war is
because we are followers we have to do whatever we are told to do because we are to chicken or maybe lazy to ban together and say to our government enough is enough do as we want not as others wants
Awe. 6:47 has done left the blog!
Well if that isn't typical of kids now adays.
Once the wheels fall off they run away.
Seeya at the SUB, ya big baby.
Now that that poster (6:47) has left and I have said good-bye and seeya later. Does anybody know when Newfoundland joined confederation?
Sore Loser stated:
"And Canada is not the Canada it was? According to the BNA Act Canada is the same country"
And a good hello to any military folk still out there. Aren't you glad "None of those [the wars listed by poster: start time 4:29 and then concluded: depart time 6:47] had to do with canadian freedom, most of which came after the second world war and came about because of the extensive work of the United Nations."
Those soldiers that fought and died in those wars had nothing to do with the freedoms we enjoy today.
Yes Sir we have our freedoms because of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
But I am willing to wager that that poster is still reading along and, just because of that I will include a most recent revolution (but unlike his references to his ideas of revolutions this revolution I mention has had nothing to do with Britney, Paris and, that woman from Herbie The Love Bug II flashing their privates) where I think there was no blood shed:
Orange.
I didn't say I left the debate, I said there was nothing left TOO debate. I really have no idea what the fascination is with bicycles, so can't really comment.
If that's what is meant by a revolution, then that somewhat makes sense. However, if we look at the Orange Revolution then it is NOT 'lawful'. Take for example where the students staged a 'sit in' at public buildings. That is not lawful, however, in that case the people had enough broad support, even from the military and police, that such laws weren't enforced. In Canada people stage sit ins all the time. The police are usually called.
Unlawful revolutions happen all the time. They happened in Bosnia and they happened in Venezuela and Bolivia. That's always been the problem-at what point is a GOVERNMENT not legitimate? When a certain percentage declare a government action not legitimate, then 'unlawful revolutions' occur-meaning civil disobedience.
For some though 'disobedience' means staging a sit in, for some it means wearing placards, and for some it means blowing themselves up with their enemies. For many it means taking up arms. There is a lot of debate about which is more effective, so long as a critical mass can be reached, less violent revolutions such as in Ukraine, or Bosnia or Venezuela have succeeded, but the people don't know these things beforehand.
Rosa Parks was also 'breaking the law'. Governments can make all kinds of crooked laws. For a lot of people like the above, the gun control law is such a case, for others the ATV law is such a case.
To be blunt. There are no such things as 'lawful revolutions'. However, there are such things as 'justified revolutions', but people have different ideas of what that means because different people have different interests at stake. But those in power always seek to control them, and in Ukraine and Bosnia, if those in charge could have kept control they would have changed things if they could.
As for Canada, like I said, the BNA Act made Canada. That means its the same country, otherwise it would have a different name. I didn't say 'nothing has changed'. Every day somehting changes, because somebody left the country do we say 'its a different country now, Bob has left'. Of course not. Quebec could separate and there would still be 'Canada', until the federal government doesn't exist.
Technically Canada is much bigger as well, since Canada was the first country to declare the 200 KM limit on the ocean. That doesn't mean its a different country. There is also a new charter from 1982, that doesnt' mean it wasn't canada in 1981, it just means it was different.
To challenge two other points mentioned above, the Taliban did not declare a jihad on the US. It declared one on Russia back before it was the government, and although it gave backing to Al Queda and Bin Laden, that didn't extend to declaring a jihad on anybody. Technically, while the Taliban were 'in charge', Afghanistan was still in state of civil war.
The other point is that if the above does some research its been a lot longer than 50 years since the majority of canadians lived rurally, go look it up, the last time I checked, the year that more canadians lived in cities than rurally was in the late 1800's.
I'm glad to see the above poster has changed his mind, thats the mark of intelligence:) Although he doesn't have to do a complete 180, I didn't say that soldiers had NOTHING to do with our freedoms. If the war was lost who knows what would have happened, and it was mostly those soldiers who returned home who fought to enforce those rights, and fought to get the UN to declare them in the first place.
I always get a kick out of the CBC 'moment' commercial about low income housing where they make it look like some sobby politician saw all the poor hurt soldiers and was moved to compassion and had pity on them enough to start low income housing. The truth is that this was being fought for almost as soon as soldiers came back, many of whom found that they had better living conditions when they were overseas.
UPDATE UPDATE
ticka ticka ticka ticka
Those soldiers that fought and died in those wars had nothing to do with the freedoms we enjoy today
Yes Sir we have our freedoms because of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
It was mostly those soldiers who returned home who fought to enforce those rights, and fought to get the UN to declare them in the first place.
This just in
Canadaian Forces Storm UN
Demand Declaration of Human Rights
More At Nov 11
Glad to see you're down to picking at grammar, its good to see that your learning the error of your ways.
Perhaps some education on how the UN works is in order. You see, when the UN makes decisions, it forms committee's who come up with 'resolutions'. Countries then vote on the resolutions. They also have what are called treaties. Countries are not bound by treaties unless they sign them.
Many nations didn't initially support the Declaration of Human Rights, but most did. Some of the things they changed around. For example, Canada and the US fought for, and won, the change in the definition of 'genocide'. Many indiginous groups around the world, and many countries, wanted 'genocide' to be not only the killing of people, but the eradication of 'cultures'. This way, native canadians and americans could have found more international support for their claims that the canadian and american governmeents were committing 'genocide'. This, of course, was at the peak of the 'residential schools' scandal, where governments were forcefully 're-educating' natives.
That is not the UN's fault that it was not used, that is Canada and the US's fault. Many native groups were lobbying for that inclusion, and many of those were soldiers, as not often noted, natives had more soldiers per capita than any ethnicity. They fought for the country and returned to see the government treating their people even worse.
This was the same in the states. Soldiers returned back to the south to find circumstances far worse than when they were soldiers. Many stayed in Europe where people were far more integrated and less racist, and the ones that returned home began the fight for civil rights. One soldier would note that he "wished Hitler had won" when he came home. One of the biggest instigators of the civil rights movement was the murder of two black men and their dates. One of whom was a decorated soldier who survived the war. As one person noted "he was a good nigger when he was here, but then he come home all uppity". Thats a quote by the way.
In Canada it wasn't far different. Obviously the people with brains out there know we aren't talking about phycical fighting, however, many protests got very physical.
While its true that it was mostly europe and asia who pushed the Declaration of Human Rights, because the governments of Canada and the US came out of the war quite well. Like the first world war the government had gotten rid of most of the 'troublemakers' from the labour movement and the superfluous population that had no jobs. All the wartime restrictions meant most of the labor movement was marginalized.
After the war it was very different. Go look at voter turnout in those years. People were very active in politics and politicians heard about it. Plus, 'party politics' had much less sway, and committee's had far more power. So the government had to pay at least some attention to what people were saying.
Then, like now, the overwhelming number of people were supporters of human rights, in fact they wanted governments to go even further. However, after the war much of industry had been bought up by integrated with american corporations, and the last thing they wanted was human rights to extend to 'labour rights'.
The cold war started virtually right after the second world war, and why it happened is stated openly by industry in the states. By that time the always warned against 'military economy' was in full swing and they had no intention of letting that stop. So human rights became quite a struggle. WHen Saskatchewan elected Tommy Douglas the federal government really began to take notice, and by the sixties thats when the 'fight' for civil rights was really getting popular support.
However, that took years, and you can see that the biggest gains came in the seventies. There were low income housing programs, co-operative movements, etc. That came about because of the 'fight' for human rights.
WHile the UN doesn't have authority to 'force' countries to do things, they do have 'pressure' that can be put on countries to abide by the regulations they have signed. Back then there was also a much better media system so people had an idea of what the UN was doing. Today, people only hear about the UN when somebody is griping. Most people can't even name who Canada's representative at the UN is.
So that's in general how soldiers once again 'fought' for rights on their return home. I always get a kick out of that movie version of the fifties as if all the soldiers returned home, got married, their wives left their jobs and started families and everybody sat around all evening mowing lawns and watching television. That's pretty far from the case.
Welcome back 3:49
You don't have to say anything about what happened. I sometimes go for a good long run too when I want to try to explain myself beter when things aren't going, ah, well. I wouldn't say my way. I'll say your way. 'Cause I'm just that kind of writer; give a break to a younger one once in awhile is what I always say.
Some windy last night wasn't it.
Well you have come half way on admitting you should have been more explanatory on your first post so I decided I would have a look into the work that the UN has done in the last while.
Announcement
2003/12/12
Paul Martin junior accepts the flag that was flown at half staff on his father's death while being sworn in as Canada's prime minister.
Former industry minister and leadership hopeful Allan Rock becomes Canada's ambassador to the United Nations.
Announcement
July 17,2005
More than any other individual, most deem Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control (CGC), as the driving force behind the successful passage of Canada's Firearms Registration and Future Confiscation of Firearms Act. A professor of justice studies at Toronto’s Ryerson University, Cukier co-founded the CGC in 1991 with Heidi Rathjen [who hasn't been seen since she went in for surgery to remove her lisp] to crusade for more stringent gun registration with the future aim being confiscation of every firearm once all firearms and firearm's owners in Canada were registered. In her presentation to the United Nations Ms. Cukier joined hands with Allan Rock as she quoted from her most recent book. "We know we can not eat an elephant in one setting but we have learned by our experience in Canada that it is possible to register restrict and, then confiscate every privately owned firearm in the world."
Ms. Cukier co-authored GLOBAL GUN EPIDEMIC with Victor W. Sidel while on sabbatical from Ryerson University. With a grant of 250,000 canadian dollars from the Safety Council of Canada, Mr. Sidel and Ms. Cukier were able to bring their book to print and had enough money left over to address the United Nations on their current success in Canada and outline their future plan to rid the world of privately owned arms.
Mr. Emille Therien, President of The Canadian Safety Council, was in attendance for the momentous speech. Mr. Therien took the occasion to announce a further 100,000 canadian dollars to assist in getting the word out to the member states' representatives that were not in attendance, due to the fact that it was Twoonie Tueday and hey, just luvin it.
Announcement
16/02/2006/
0700 hours EST
Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that Allan Rock, Canada’s Ambassador to the United Nations, will leave his post in the summer.
Announcement
16/02/2006/06
0800 hours EST
Letter from
United Nations
Deputy Minister Harder
to Allan Rock
I am writing further to the announcement this morning of the nomination of Mr. John McNee to succeed you as Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations in New York.
As you are aware, the Prime Minister received your letter of resignation some days ago and has asked that I convey his gratitude to you for agreeing to stay on in New York until the end of June so that your work on registering restricting and confiscating every privately owned firearm in the world can carry on as usual until that time. Mr. McNee will begin his assignment in July. I want to thank you for the exemplary work you, Wendy, Emille, Andy and, that one with the lisp (where ever did she go anyways), have accomplished during your two billion canadian dollar spending spree under the previous federal Liberal governments in Ottawa that was all for nought. Some would say two billion canadian dollars wasted is a heck of a lot of money but we here at the UN say "peanuts" to that. I mean really, how much could that be in $US?
With all good wishes
Sincerely,
Peter V. Harder
Announcement
04/07/06
Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that John McNee is now Canada's Permanent Representative to the United Nations. He represents Canada in the General Assembly and before the Security Council, and works with the UN’s 191 other member states to advance a variety of Canadian priorities. He assumed his post on July 1, 2006.
Announcement
2007-01-09
Today, Canada's New Government is investing in two important programs that strengthen reconstruction in Afghanistan and ensure the Afghan people can live safely and prosper in a democratic and free environment
“Today, Canada’s New Government is providing two important contributions for Afghanistan that will improve the lives of Afghan women and ensure critical infrastructure is developed in Kandahar,” said John McNee “Our contribution to UNICEF helps to address critical issues facing Afghan women: maternal death in childbirth, and illiteracy. And our significant investment in the reconstruction program will ensure the Kandahar region gets the infrastructure it needs sooner.”
Announcement
26 February 2007
Canada's New Government substantially boosts support to development efforts in Afghanistan. The funding, to be disbursed this year, on top of Canada’s annual allocation of $100 million for development activities in Afghanistan, will flow to five priority areas: governance and development ($120 million); counter-narcotics ($30 million); policing ($20 million); de-mining ($20 million); and road construction ($10 million).
March 4th, 2007
Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced $200 million in additional funding on top of all previously announced funding for reconstruction and development activities in Afghanistan. The announcement was made following a meeting with Christopher Alexander, the Deputy Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General for Afghanistan.
Well I guess there is being some progress made in the UN after all. I just thought you would be one of those writers that would swing off on a tangent somewhere and turn this debate in to a "I have the right to own a gun" rant. And a "Thank God the Liberals in Canada aren't running Ottawa no more" like kinda thing!
I wonder if anybody knows what ever happened to Wendy Cukier Alan Rock and Emile Therein. We all know Hon. Andy "I don't recall: what airplane trip" Scott only has two or three more years to go before he gets his full Ottawa MP's pension and most likely Sean "Honker" Graham will create some well paying position here in the province for him until then anyways. Oh no I just thought of something: Honker at next election time will run on his record of bringing back expat New Brunswickers to work here again in their home province. Dear Lord, say it ain't so! So Andy will most likely never be held accountable for the over $2,000,000,000 wasted on the registry he blindly followed Federal Party Lines, (unlike the federal representative in the registry's riding saw the good sense to disregard) to help set up.
Last I heard of Emile Therein was the time I saw him on TV and he was saying something about Rottweillers and PitBulls and Rottwiellers/PitBulls crosses should not be banned just because they ate four or five toddlers in Toronto one summer. He went on to say it was the owner's faults not the dogs.
****aside: If you aren't too distracted with the day to day business of yours there Charles could you check and see if that Therein fellow might happen to be a Quebecer by any chance can you?****
Now Wendy Cukier is a different story all together. First she blamed the average gun owner for all the problems in the world. Then she blamed the police after all the laws she connived so foolishly to have passed in the Liberal Parliament and then rubber stamped in the Liberal Senate proved useless when that third shooting in Quebec made headlines.
Wouldn't surprise me a bit if she is using her tenure to spread her works Internationally.
Most likely she is over in North Korea trying to get "Dear Leader" to register his nucular bombs. Yeah that's it.
Watch out Kim, she'll take them if you fall for that old "if it saves just one life, it's worth it" routine.
Interesting post, that saves me a lot of work and seems pretty much to support my claim. You're biggest argument above seems to be a UN support for getting rid of private guns, of course the feds are doing that, the liberals brought it in with the support of most police, and at the time it was painted as a 'rural' vs 'urban' debate, which is sort of true.
But you'll probably find more people support getting rid of firearms than don't, even the Harpies have given up on trying to resurrect the gun laws.
The gun registry is an interesting example, so since the above poster seems to be posting articles supporting my claims, then I'll go on one of my tangents and talk about it. As regards the cost overruns this is very interesting for New Brunswick because the cost overruns were due to a particular cost sharing mechanism called a 'public private partnership'.
Specifically, Ross Perot's computer company was hired to implement it, which then went on to milk the government. Since PPP's were quite new in those days the government didn't have any of the cheques and balances in place.
That lead to all kinds of financial calamities. THey bought a computer program that was no good, leased back computers that they had already purchased and on and on.
This is relevant because we're once again back in the state where NB will no doubt be pushing more PPP's on the public.
As for Afghanistan, wouldn't it be nice if the feds put some of that kind of money into New Brunswick infrastructure. However, funds have gone to those programs before-and diverted from those programs before.
For example, last spring there was a much vaunted program to increase the water supply, the media cheered it and polls showed a little more support for actions in Afghanistan. Turns out though that what the media didn't say was that the water was being sold by the canadian military to other countries who were serving in the country. It wasn't going to benefit Afghani's at all.
But the UN at least has a goal in mind-namely stability. The US has a goal, namely protecting corporate ownership of the pipeline. That's all they care about and couldn't care less how many Afghanis' blow themselves up or what the casualties are.
Notice how they maintain that they won't even TALK to the Taliban. That's common in war, Germany probably would have surrended long before had they been given the option. But the General's and the corporations don't worry about such things, its not as if THEY are going to get blown up. Most of them never go anywhere near the place.
Keep in mind that I never said that the UN was the be all and end all, only that they are better than the alternative. Considerable pressure is being mounted to change the way the UN operates, and if canadians ever heard of it then they may perhaps take part in the lobbying, although some canadian organizations are. That's to get rid of the security council altogether and the right of veto and make the UN more democratic.
It is mainly the developing world that is making those demands, and as Venezuela gets more money and makes more demands then there may be some change. Canadians no longer play the role they used to in that respect, we are just americans to most third worlders now.
9:19 AM
I'm not going to post again until you have a posting moniker. If you have a posting moniker somewhere
else that could be this one for you here at Oldmaison or a new one: choice is yours.
"duanarchy said...
fight the canadian forces"
is already taken. What the heck is a post modonarchist post leftist post anarchist nowadaysanyways? I'll tell you what I think that poster comments:
https://www2.blogger.com/
comment.g?blogID=3689341771913833762
&postID=7334006285375166460
That commenter posts as somebody not as fortunate as you 9:19 AM and that poster won't even admit to ownering a two wheeeler.
Must be nice to have four wheels is all I can say. Two upright and, two for trainering.
And that blogger posts they find my posts "more interestering" than your posts!
Well 9:19 AM how about it? Got a moniker for this blog?
Hey have you seen this site? It details a section of the human rights declaration form the UN.
http://committeetoprotectbloggers.blogspot.com/
is devoted to the protection of bloggers around the world. In a host of countries around the world bloggers are routinely imprisoned for their activities. The blogging community should not leave the responsibility for their well-beingin others’ hands.
The Committee has four primary spheres of activity.
CPB will serve as a clearinghouse for information on incarcerated members of our community, as well as those whose lives have been taken from them because of their enthusiasm for the free exchange of information that blogging allows.
CPB will serve as a pressure group to force unrecalcitrant governments to free imprisoned bloggers, and make restitution for tortured and murdered ones.
CPB will bring to bear the formidable communicative power of the blogosphere to keep pressure on governments to stop
CPB will act as direct agents in negotiations to free imprisoned bloggers.
We are driven by our enthusiasm for knowledge, by our affection for the possibilities of blogging, by the love we have for our fellow bloggers and by our belief in the free exchange of ideas.
We are guided by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The blog has several posts up on bloggers around the world that are under persecution.
Article 19 of the Declaration states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Post a Comment