Our PM On Rights

Spread the love

“The fight against terrorism will only be won if the rights of individuals are respected”
~ Prime Minister Paul Martin

According to The Star, that’s what Paul says. But the same article states Paul is heading off “to Budapest, Hungary, to attend the Progressive Governance Summit, a gathering of left-of-centre world leaders.”

I wonder if Canada Steamship Lines is paying for this, or perhaps it is the individuals he claims to respect the rights of, that are paying for it.

9 thoughts on “Our PM On Rights”

  1. After reading the story I had this vision of a cartoon Captain Planet and this thought came to my head Liberal powers unite! I know its crazy but I can’t help myself.

  2. Yes, you do have the right to be a total ignoramus. You might want to hesitate in exercising that right though. Try at least to think for yourself. I know it might hurt at first, but you’ll find the results rewarding. I think the “This Land is Our Land” image at the right should read, “This Land is Our Land. We killed the Native Indians and stole it Fair and Square. Find your own damn natives, Government!” And I much prefer when Paul meets with the heads of corporations. At least then they can bribe him by paying for his trip, hotel room and extras. What’s Chirac going to give him. A bottle of crappy French wine? Please, the French don’t make wine, they only whine and make love (dirty love at that).

  3. Killed the natives and then stole it from them? Hmmm… You’ve had some interesting history lessons, haven’t you, idiotasaurus?

  4. As opposed to… the white man showed up and the natives just gave the land away. I suppose you think slavery never happened either. Or that the church never commited atrocities. Maybe its that property rights are only important once you’ve taken others property by force. Why, the ingrates might try to take it back. And that would just be wrong.

  5. Is this seriously what you believe? Very interesting.. what school did you go to? Are you an adult that has actually done some serious study of British Canadian history? The Indian wars? The Iroquois and The Hurons?

  6. Right. How many original native Indians still live in Newfoundland? Oh, is the answer zero. I guess they must have moved away due to better job prospects elsewhere. Besides, why arbitrarily narrow the field to British/French Canadian history. American and South American history has some beautiful examples of property rights in action. Oh and I believe that recently (last 200 years, maybe more) women stopped being property, but don’t let history get in the way of your narrow view of human affairs. Unlike you though, I’m open-minded (not really), so why don’t you cite some historical examples instead of just throwing out names of events and tribes.

  7. You’re a funny idiotasaurus! If you go back to your first comment on this post, you stated “We killed the Native Indians and stole it Fair and Square.” And we are talking about Canada. The atrocity of Newfoundland is very sad indeed.. but that atrocity has nothing to do with your blanket statement, above. Do us a favour.. if you’re not a native Indian yourself, just give up all your property to the next one you meet, and high tail it back to wherever your ancestors are from. Thankfully, we don’t live in the 19th century – but how far back in history would you like to go? Are you suggesting the Native tribes present in Canada never committed their own atrocities, battled and warred for territory or killed anyone? Or traded land? Your blanket statements and views are indicitave of your ignorance of history, and what we are today, in the 21st century. I suppose we could go back to the Garden of Eden, and blame all our problems on whatever caused the fall of mankind back then…. just let me know how far back in history you’d like to go, Mr or Ms Idotasaurus.. the dinasour age?

  8. Dinasour age, I like that! I don’t get your line of reasoning though. Should my “Fair and Square” statement apply only to Newfoundland then? Or is it not stealing if you kill them all first? Are you suggesting if the natives did kill some white folk, then it was OK for us to kill them? Did it have to be a one-to-one ratio? Could we kill 5 or 10 of them for each whitey that died? How about instead of heading back in time for a start point, we head forward in time. What’s your arbitrary cut-off date? 1867? 1967? 1997? 2003? When exactly did the government start trampling on your rights to “your” land?

  9. I have no clue what your statement refers to, Idiotasaurus. Your statement was created in your mind.. what you refer to or don’t refer to is up to you as to how you explain it more fully, in light of the history of the article you were responding to. And of course, in light of what historical period you wish to discuss. You’re the one that made the strange blanket statement in the first place.. and the blanket is not true of everything. As well, I have no arbitrary cut off dates.. do you? Want to go back to 5,000 BC? Let’s do it 🙂

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top