JPINFV

Really? THAT is what people are upset about? A group goes, makes themselves look like morons while in a cordoned off area removed from the ceremony(which they make no attempt to move away from), and burn a few pieces of what looks like plastic (not smart), but in a manner that doesn't present a fire hazard to surrounding structures? That is what people are mad about? I see a very distasteful demonstration, but if it occurred in the US, nothing illegal about it.

Is contempt of government a crime? Oh, that's rich. I'm a liberal? Excuse me while I laugh. Libertarian? Sure. To steal a line from a radio talkshow host that I used to listen to, I'm more conservative than liberal, more libertarian than conservative, and more cynical and skeptical than anything else. I guess it's a good think that this event didn't occur in Canada then, anyways. Reported in a Canadian paper, sure, but their source is the Daily Mail (AKA Daily Fail) from the UK. At least I'm qualifying my statements as, "If this was the US" when discussing the legal issue, however the legal issue is different from right and wrong, and censoring a group for no better reason than you dislike the message is de facto wrong.

Let me know when we start discussing football/soccer games and the G20 riots. Were the protesters in this case running down the street destroying the property of someone else? Are you suggesting the the entire legal system of Canada, including all laws and sources of judicial relief, can be found in the BNA? Is false imprisonment not a crime an Canada? Also, false imprisonment is not just a tort. Are you suggesting that you can pass what ever laws you want without regard to the rights of other citizens? So if the majority vote to make everyone with red hair slaves, since a majority says so, that law is both just and enforceable? Oh, so now everyone in Alberta is a red neck because you said so? An entire province of red neck vigilantes? Strange, the only person I seem to remember endorsing vigilantism is you. Also, why Alberta? After all, the original case occured in London, England. Shouldn't the conference occur there? I am not a citizen of Canada, nor am I currently located in Canada. As such, Canada can go pound sand. Oh, and if Canada wants to arrest me, come and get me. Yes, you don't have the right to make credible threats of assault or murder. If you can't see the difference between "I'm going to kill _____" and "_____ will burn in hell when ____ dies," then I don't understand how I can help you. Similarly, I never said that you can't have the opinion that "____ should go back to where ____ came from." Of course the fatal flaw is if _____ was born in Canada (regardless of how close the nearest immigrant relative came over), then _____ came from Canada, and if _____ is a naturalized citizen of Canada, then ____ is their rightful, and legal home with ____ having every bit of right to call Canada their home that you do. Similarly, if they are a citizen, don't they have every right to tell you to go back to where your immigrant relatives (regardless of how recent or distant said relative is) came from?

Congrats at failing at realizing that just because they did arrest them doesn't necessarily mean they should have. The US put over 100,000 US citizens in concentration internment camps during WW2, which we now realize was an incredibly stupid and bad thing to do. Are you suggesting that, because we did, that it was the de facto correct course of action? Additionally, if someone is arrested, but it is obvious that they did not commit a crime, I expect those police officers to be fired and charged with false imprisonment. Not everyone that is accused of something is arrested. Similarly, if people decided to rely on mob rule and enforce their own laws, I expect the police to arrest them and for them to be charged for their offenses. So, you believe, or at least tacitly support, that it isn't the police job to enforce morality, but the job of a bunch of rednecks to commit vigilante "justice," and that there's nothing wrong with that? The media and state and federal police agencies have a way of finding their way to backwards communities like that. ...and yes, communities that see no problem with vigilante justice is backwards, be it in the Middle East, Africa, or the US. Just because you (generic "you") disagree with the law or court rulings doesn't give you permission to commit murder. I find no humor with the assumption that because I have a different opinion, I have to be thankful that the Nazis didn't win WW2. I guess I should also be lucky that the Ottoman Empire didn't win WW1 as well. Oh, that's funny. You support vigilante red necks, but I don't understand the intent of law? Wow, that's actually quite hilarious. Oh, and I didn't spend hours online finding the Bellany salute. See, I observe and learn things every day I live. I knew that existed years before this conversation ever started. Oh, but keep thinking that the Nazis invented that salute. Here's something else that might blow your mind. The terms "under God" are political in nature. Those two words were added during the Cold War to separate ourselves from the 'Godless communists.' Also, you know what else would have me or you speaking or saluting in a different manner? Any change in history, including where you and I were born. Congrats on that magnificent observation. However, why Japanese or German if not trying to Godwin the conversation? We could have just of easily be speaking French, Spanish, or a whole host of other languages if a few changes in history occurred. After all, what would have happened if Spain won the Spanish-American war, or the French won the French and Indian war? I bet we wouldn't be speaking English. So, the only reason to pick those two languages is obviously because the Japanese and Germans did terrible things during WW2, thus the only reason to pick those two language is to make the Nazi reference, which therefore invokes Godwin. Really, support for freedom of speech is now the same as supporting the goals of any group? I support the NSP vs Village of Skokie decision, but that doesn't mean that I support the National Socialist Party. Congrats on confusing support for freedom for the support of any specific group. ...and yes, I realize that not everyone supports freedom of speech if it means supporting speech they don't agree with. However failing to support speech you don't agree with is one and the same as not supporting freedom of speech. Did you miss, or intentionally ignore, every time I mentioned that 'while I can't speak intelligently on Canadian or UK law, if this was the US...'? Seriously, I said that several times. Additionally, the conversation of whether a sovereign state should do something is not confined by the laws of that country. Just because a sovereign state shouldn't do something doesn't mean they can't.

My parents always told me I was special.

Are the police supposed to take action against people engaged in legal activities? If we aren't looking at police action against the protesters, who, then, is supposed to take action? Who's job is it to enforce morality? Huh? Oh, wait, Godwin. Thanks, I win.

I love the $1 coins, especially when the cashier at the food place on campus handed them out like they were quarters, twice. I didn't catch the second time, but I caught the first time and prompted her to recount. If ya miss it twice, sorry, but thanks for the 75 cents!

No one has made an argument about safety. So far the entire discussion has been about the message and the symbolism of the means. They could have taken scissors to it, conveyed the same message, and the safety issue wouldn't have been a factor. Lots. To say that you can't disrupt something in public and open to the public by shouting as part of a counter protest would be to make illegal all counter protests, regardless of the message. However, if you're counter protesting you don't get to run into the other group and start pulling down signs, pushing people, etc. The pencils were an example. I don't care what you, as an individual, does with a pencil nor a crucifix, and I value crucifixes much more than pencils. Should you be allowed to destroy them publicly at my event? Yes, you legally should. There may be limits on the specific mechanism of destruction, but the intent and final state of being destructed shouldn't be banned. Yes, freedom of speech isn't an absolute, but the test for when speech can be limited isn't, "I vigorously disagree with your message." As far as the tit-for-tat, I didn't ignore it. I just pointed out that the flaw in that line of thinking is the assumption that you have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own property because you place a high level of value on my property. I'll ask again, what right do you have to tell me what to do with my property? If I build a large model poppy, do you now have veto power over what I do with it because of what the poppy means to you? Does that veto power include compelling via police action to acquiesce to your demands? Do you have the right to be free from offense?

I didn't realize that you could hide behind legal rights? At no time did I ever put forth that individuals weren't free to judge, just that they shouldn't be running to the government to do something about it. Why is it the government's job to hold everybody's hand? I won't argue that disrespect isn't wrong. I will argue, though, that there's nothing illegal about it. I also didn't realize that supporting freedom of speech lowers my level. Remember this conversation next time you do something that offends someone else, but you feel it's your right to do so. I'd hate to have someone lower themselves to your level in support of freedom.

With out knowing the legal system and the rights granted to citizens in the United Kingdom, I can't answer this question exactly as posed. However, if the exact same situation occurred in the US, AND assuming that the fire itself did not pose a risk to others (this is independent of what was actually being burned), AND considering that this occurred in a public venue, than yes, I believe it's their right. I don't have to agree with the message given and I can personally pass judgment on the group, but that does not conflict with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and assembly is not freedom from judgment of others, just undue government interference and regulation. They can destroy what ever pieces of their own property they want regardless of what meanings other people want to proscribe to to those objects provided they are not presenting a danger to others. Can I go burn a cross in my front yard? No, but because the fire is a danger to others. However nothing is stopping me from renting a wood chipper and throwing in as many religious symbols that I want. If I want to run a Koran, Bible, and Torah (to hit the 3 main monotheistic religions) through a shredder while standing on a street corner, I can. That doesn't mean others can't judge me on it though. As far as disruption, being in public it depends on how the disruption is occurring. Picketing, chanting, etc? Perfectly within their rights. Running on stage? Nope. However everyone in attendance is free to pass their own personal judgment on the jack wagons disrupting the event. What right do you have to proscribe what someone else does with their property because of the symbolism you proscribe to the object? If I believe that pencils are sacred, can I force you not to sharpen your pencil because I believe you are destroying it? Again, I don't know what rights the Citizens of the UK have under their government, which plays a big part in what the appropriate government response is. However, in my opinion and assuming similar rights to US citizens, the citizens have rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of press, etc. Non-citizens don't. This becomes a little hazy when it comes down to things like criminal trials and imprisonment, but that is drastically different than if a judge just unilaterally decided to deport a non-citizen. Additionally, having the legal right to do something doesn't mean free from the judgment of others. As with the above use of a wood chipper, I completely believe that I should be allowed to do so unfettered by the police. That doesn't mean that you can't come out and yell at me and treat me forever after as a persona non-grata. After all, that's your right to do so to. All actions have consequences, however not all consequences need to come from the government or agents of the government.

I'm actually not trying to be obtuse for the sake of argument. How many generations after a citizen naturalizes does his family earn the right to petition for change then? Also, a naturalized citizen is no longer a guest. I didn't say that being born in America precludes someone from being a proud American. I said that ignorance of other first world countries precludes people. People should be proud of the choices they specifically made, not the luck of the draw. Additionally, it seems that you are lumping in lack of pride with shame. Why would someone seek to change from something they aren't ashamed to be? Similarly, if a citizen was ashamed over something, wouldn't it be just as valid to try to invoke change? To say that lack of pride, or people who are unhappy or ashamed, is the same as telling everyone involved with the revolutionary war that they should have just moved out of the colonies instead of attempting to invoke change. Where did I discuss the issue of illegal aliens? I made a distinction between naturalization and natural born citizens, but I did not even touch on the issue of illegal aliens. Illegal aliens are not citizens, and therefore I do not give them any though in deciding and advocating for how my country should be ran. Oh, and quick question. You're a natural born citizen, correct? What did you do to earn citizenship? Being born to parents of American citizenship or being born in America is not earning anything. Birth right? Sure, but something earned? Definitely not. Nope, haven't noticed at all that I'm not supposed to invoke Christmas in December, and if anyone has a problem with that, I'd like to wish them both happy holidays AND a merry Christmas. Sure, for as long as I remember academic calendars have labeled Christmas as "Winter Recess," but no one called it that and I'm not going to get uppidity over what's written on a Calendar. You mean Sultaana Freeman, a natural born American citizen who converted to Islam, wanted to take her drivers license ID with a veil was eventually denied (they accidentally allowed the first photo to be done with a veil), followed the appropriate legal venue for judicial relief, and was subsequently denied because court sided with the state's experts testified that even in Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia required full face IDs and the Department of Motor Vehicles (or what ever Florida calls it) was willing to accommodate her by having only females present for her photograph? Yep, those darn immigrants or naturalized natural born citizens exercising their right to appeal to the legal system. 5th District Court of Appeals ruling on the Florida case denying Mrs. Freeman's claim: http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2006/021306/5D03-2296.op.corr.pdf Show me a calendar with a different name for the holiday on December 25th. Why aren't people complaining about calling Spring Break Spring Break? It occurs around Easter and Easter is THE pinnacle holiday in Christianity? Also, at least with Easter and unlike Christmas, at least Easter falls around the time of the year it might have actually occurred (in close proximity to Passover). It's established fact that Christmas did not occur in December when the Nativity stories in the bible are taken at face value. I'm still failing to see the connection between the US. Are you suggesting that we banish or murder everyone who doesn't fit in with the majority? Does it matter whether that person is a naturally born citizen or a naturalized citizen?

Acceptable and legal are two different questions. Acceptable? No. Something that should be illegal? Not if you value freedom of speech.

First off, I don't recognize a difference between a natural born citizen (blood or birth) and a naturalized citizen in terms of customs, polices, or practices. Either your a citizen, which includes all of the rights and responsibilities, or you're not a citizen. It's not a "Born here first, then citizen by blood, then citizen by naturalization" hierarchy. Additionally, I honestly believe that naturalized citizens have more reason to be proud of their citizenship than natural born citizens. My citizenship in this great country has been handed to me on a silver platter because I was lucky enough to be born here and kept because I can't be half-assed (nor do I have the time) to explore other valid options (no, Mexico doesn't count as a valid option. Neither does Iraq.). I'm willing to argue that the vast majority of natural born citizens fall into that category. That is completely different than someone uprooting themselves, and possibly their family, moving to a strange land, and earning citizenship. They have a right to be proud to be an American. Most of us have no reason to be proud (and, note, not being proud is NOT the same as being ashamed) to be an American. It's just something we are. No different than anything else we have no control over, be it skin color, ethnicity, or sex. Additionally, any citizen, regardless of earning citizenship or getting lucky in the lottery of life, has a right to petition the government and attempt to change the society that they are a member of. That's part of the right of being a citizen. Other citizens have the right to oppose that petition, and all citizens have the right to pass personal judgment on the merits and motivations of both sides. Neither the natural born citizens or the naturalized citizens get a pass in this. None, but I neither ask, nor require, permission of others for me to practice my own customs. Similarly, I don't expect others to gain my consent provided it is all done in a lawful manner. I may not agree with what someone is doing, but that doesn't mean I think the government should step in and stop it. Who's asking you to accommodate their religion as superior? Does your Catholicism really hinge on wishing someone a merry Christmas? So what if they don't like it, they don't have to. You're well within your right to wish them a merry Christmas as much as you want. Similarly, they are free to pass what ever judgment they'd like. Of course, why would you want to keep friends with someone who's so uptight that they get mad over a greeting like that? I'm Catholic, and I don't see how I would be offended if a Muslim greeted me with the traditional greeting for Ramadan, but my religion doesn't depend on the approval of others. However, there are plenty of examples of Christians in general acting like our religion (all sects included) are somehow superior to all other religions in this country. No, but I always assumed that the United States was a significantly better country than Iraq. I have been wrong about these things before, and since you're making that argument, you obviously think that Iraq and the United States are apparently somewhere near the same level in terms of governance.

However customs and practices are always changing. The customs and practices of today is different than it was 50 years ago or 100 years ago. That's not necessarily a bad thing nor is it just due to immigration. However some change is do to the influence of immigrants, which is not de facto bad either. Only as absurd as it is to say that one religion can wear religious garb but not another. What would your response be if the RCMP ordered an officer to remove a visible crucifix? Going off the above about customs and practices, may I present the Bellany salute circa 1892-1942. Hell, that was changed because of a specific foreign government. Let's return to it since we shouldn't let foreigners change our customs and practices! Sure, but then that prohibition needs to be for all religions, not just the Muslims. Similarly, even the Romans incorporated foreign culture into Roman culture. You don't think that all that conquering didn't change Roman culture, do you? Look through out history at countries like Japan and China and look at the differences between when they were more open to foreigners or more closed off. However this gets sticky when you start dealing with early generations. A 1st generation citizen is not an immigrant and their country of citizenship is not a host country. They are a citizen, with all of the rights and responsibilities that comes with it, even if people who's families immigrated earlier dislike it. For a country with supposedly no national religion, we Americans sure are a funny bunch when it comes to promoting religious holidays. Especially a holiday that most people don't understand the history of and has become disgustingly commercialized. After all, the roots of Christmas are Pagan in origin. However, if someone wished you a merry Hanukkah, would you be offended? I was going to say Kwanzaa, but that's not a real holiday anyways.

Really? What is it then, because what I got was, "Turbans are foreign, therefore shouldn't be allowed, even if the person is a natural born Canadian Citizen." Would you have a problem with a Jew wearing a yarmulke or a Christian wearing a crucifix? All are parts of religious dress (albeit the crucifix is the least strong as nothing I know of in Christianity, and definitely Catholicism, compels wearing one, unlike the Sikhs and Jews with the turban and yarmulke respectively), so either all should be allowed or none allowed provided it doesn't interfere with job performance. So how do you feel when the other European immigrants (regardless of if they were born in Canada or not or when their family immigrated) who don't pay heed to First Nations culture?

How do you know that he's an immigrant? Since some religions (namely Sikhs) wear turbans, wouldn't the appropriate response be to ban all religious wear? Also, how adherent are you to First Nation customs? After all, if you want to play the immigrant card, aren't you an immigrant to their land?

So you're the sole arbitrator of who should and shouldn't be in your (which can just as easily be their) country? Wouldn't a Canadian who is a member of Muslims Against Crusades have just as much right to tell you to get out of his or her country? Don't get me wrong, I think these sort of things are despicable, but I'm not calling for the exile of or the stripping of citizenship from, using a US example, Fred Phelps.

Why are you making the assumption that all of the people involved with the protest aren't Canadian citizens? If any of them are Canadian citizens, be it by birth, blood, or naturalization, aren't they already in their own country?

So... I've finally broken down and started a blog up. I'll definitely still stay posting on the forums and all, but it will be nice to have a larger place to comment. EMT-Medical Student

...but the big question regarding the nodules are, "What are the nodules comprised of?" and "Where is the infection?" There are worse acronyms out there...

My original comment was, "Why not non-resistant staph instead of MRSA if you're looking at infection?" While it doesn't have to be resistant staph for this, the specific case includes MRSA cellulitis, which was why I redacted it. If the cellulitis wasn't specifically called MRSA, I wouldn't have redacted it. Essentially, it's one of those, "Well, you're infected with MRSA in one location, why would it be non-resistant elsewhere?" As an example of this line of thinking, an uncomplicated UTI in a sexually active female is E. coli unless it doesn't respond to treatment (cultures aren't even grown if the UTI responds to Bactrim). So, similarly, IF the staph moved elsewhere AND the clinical picture says staph, I'd argue that it's MRSA pending cultures. On a side note, ladies, if you're sexually active and constantly get UTIs, go pee right after you get done to flush out the little beasties.

Redacted

I don't agree that this is a freedom of speech case as I would like to know what exactly he is advocating. "Kill ____ because they ____" would most likely not be protected. This is completely different than a "Support _____ group, even if _____ group has a nice long history of doing really bad things in addition to 'political activism.'" However, there is no such thing as 'freedom from offense.' As far as hate crimes, making the intent of a crime worth extra prison time is starting down the short path to 1984 and thought crimes. Murder is murder and there shouldn't be an 'extra bad murder' because someone's intent is some sort of psychopathic enjoyment, or racism or other forms of hate.