ERNST ZÜNDEL - Page 5

My answer: how does it NOT make sense? I'm at a loss to think of how not wanting to treat people fairly is inconsistent. I said before the government SHOULD make it illegal to knowingly spread falsehoods on the internet, television, in books, radio, etc. Then, you have a fair trial- if he's found guilty in a court of law you put him in jail, fine him, or at least make it illegal to spread the lies. That's pretty simple. And as you said, there's germans who actually killed people in the war walking around canada. They must feel right at home now. When the government makes proclamations people tend to give them the benefit of the doubt-as we see here. Most of the people commenting here have never read a word that Zundel wrote, didn't even know he is a pacifist and never even threatened jews (in fact had more jewish friends in Montreal than most canadians have ever seen). He clearly has psychological disorders or else in his later works was more interested in writing fiction. In locking him away you are only increasing the hate because now it has a full scale martyr. Anybody who really thinks that somebody hates the jews because they picked up and read a Zundel book is in my humble opinion, an idiot. People don't base hatred on books, they base it on experience. This is like saying we should arrest the guy who wrote "Catcher in the Rye" because the lunatic who shot Reagan had a copy of it with him. To me that paints our society as the maniac, not the nut who writes it (and there's plenty of nuts out there). The easy reply is of course that Zundel has been incommunicado for years now-have we stopped the hate? As far as the native stuff goes, that was in reply to your mention of the Sudan. The native question is Canada's palestine. We are the South Africa of our time-but fortunately for us other people are doing worse killing right now. Nobody likes to think that, they like to think everybody in the world loves us and doesn't dwell on such facts. We live in a fairly free and open society which means WE are responsible. The fact that it would take so little to raise a people out of poverty is simply another indictment of our way of life. There's a difference between wanting to help somebody on the other side of the world for something we had no part in so we can feel good about it, and doing something to change an injustice which we are complicit in. If only a tenth of the organization, money and attention went into native self government (or even native causes) that went into the tsunami relief we'd have a much different country right now. I did not mean for it to sound that your opinion didn't count, far from it, however, the point of the board is to comment on them. If you didn't want any comments, or just wanted praise then this is definitely the wrong place, we're a pretty contrary bunch-that makes it interesting. However, as far as white guilt and inactivity goes, I am fully aware that I'm not doing enough. I subscribe only to native papers and support many causes, etc., but it is not enough, which is why I am running for office. I want direct democracy to be an example somewhere for natives to see it. If you've ever experienced or read about native elections they are back where our elections were before the fifties, buying votes, buying alcohol for votes, etc. This is why for native self government to work they have to go back to their earlier democratic roots. Our very un-democratic society is the worst influence possible.

I didn't put my statement up here in hopes to get a pat on the back. I realize that isn't the point of a "Forum". However, to read and to follow any type of literature that promtes hate may not necessarily lull millions and millions of people into killing minorities, to reject historical facts, and to believe what this nut-ball is saying - but you do have to admit there are a selected few (not just in this country - but the whole world) - who believe everything that they read. And what's worse, contort what they read to suit their own purposes and to give an excuse to kill. J.D. Salinger may have written the "Great American Novel" - and unfortunately, like a witch hunt - his book was banned from many American schools between 1966 and 1975, and well into the early 90's because of it's underlining message of nonconformity, to name a few. His fictional work, however, compares nothing to historical accounts in Germany re-written by Zundel to suit his own views. J.D. Salinger's book contributed to the death of John Lennon, and supposedly the assination attempt against Ronald Reagan. A book about a kid who wasn't in the "norm" of the great american dream might have been the sole contribution to the death of one person and the assination attempt against another - What kind of actions do you think Zundel might promote to the few who believe in everything they read? I might have found it more believable to hear that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris used The Catcher in the Rye as a reason to shoot up their High School - instead - everyone blamed Marilyn Manson. Go figure. Some more examples of how writings have been misinterpreted and acted upon: Muslims have read the Koran, and interpreted it's teachings to justify killing people in another country based on it's foreign policy, yet another written ideology, another set of documents to which it's own ideas have convinced an entire nation that they are better than anyone else. Those are the dreams of a terrorist. Hitler wrote down his ideas about the Jews in Mein Kampf, and gave his writings to the Hitler Youth as a teaching resource, along with the SS. The SS helped to orchestrate the extermination of millions of Human Beings. At some point in history - that was the vision of the people of Germany. Mein Kampf was used as a resource tool for all the red-neck neo-nazi's out there in the world who carve a swastika on their arms and lynched black people in the states. That was of course between the days of the week when their white sheets were at the drycleaners, yet another group associated with hate - who took the Constitution as the right to bear arms, and kill the black man - and call it their right. Unfortunately, in one form or another, that is the "American Dream" - and still is - in one form or another. It's proven that just a few words can start revolutions, can kill millions, and some of it has actually brought out the good in some people. So I guess the "Canadian" way of life is to allow someone like Zundel to live here, preach here, and on top of that apologize to him, make him a citizen, and say "Oh gosh - we are so sorry we stopped you from sending out mailers to people - and to spread propaganda denying the murder of hundreds of thousands of children, sorry bud - here's your flag!" Because I'll tell you something, if Zundel starting preaching about how Natives weren't really treated like garbage, they were never oppressed, never had their rights taken away from them, and it was all just a big lie - you'd be the first one on Parliament Hill, holding him down, while Paul Martin shoves a rag down his throat to shut him up, no? Sorry - but when it comes to the lesser of the many evils in this world - whether it be little Muslim kids in Iraq showing off their AK-47's, or the moral majority in the U.S. gay-bashing and preaching, I choose to accept what our government did by censoring him - it was a moral decision. The government might possibly have blood on their hands if that man had an indirect involvement in some 17-year old High School kid who killed a Jew based on the fact that Jews have had far too much sympathy after the war. That could be one reason - another could be because that kid could think Jews are liars - and could feel that Germans themselves were punished too much for something they never did - you never know what some people are thinking. But to say that his writings do not reach anyone, that he is just some lunatic ranting on and no one hears him anyway - so let him be heard - is wrong. I feel the government did a good job - his writings do not tie in with the Canadian way of life. He isn't a citizen anyway - so be gone with him. Let some tribunal decide his fate - and let Canadians know that our idea of multiculturalism does not agree with his obvious lack of respect for the concept. Yup - I love to rant. And I agree with your viewpoints on how government has screwed up, and how our government hasn't always done the right thing, but that's just the way life is - at least they can stand up for the majority of what people believe in - after all - we hired them to do just that...?

Your idea of history is misguided if you think 'neo-nazis' lynched blacks in the states. They were lynching blacks in the states two hundred years before the nazi party was even thought of. Likewise, any text can be used to justify violence, look at christians throughout history and today-particularly in the states (the governing party has often been described as apocalyptic). A person or society of unsound mind can find justification in a children's book if they wanted (and in fact have) Attacking the writer is like shooting the messenger. Mein Kampf became a political tool along with thousands of other political tools; to prove my point I'd like you to imagine that Hitler hadn't written the book-do you really think history would be different? Nobody had even heard of the book until the party abolished elections. Keep in mind also that this also distorts history, jews were by no means the only people to feel his wrath-gays, communists, romanians, gypsies and many other groups met a similar fate. You'll also note that so-called 'neo-nazi's' rarely attack the swiss even though Hitler quite emphatically pointed out that he wanted to be "the butcher of the swiss". This is all beside the point, perhaps you aren't hearing correctly, this argument is about bill C-68. He has been stripped of his freedoms more thoroughly than any cold blooded murderer. We aren't talking about the rudimentary arrest-trial-detention system we have of justice, if we were he would have been tried long ago and would be serving a sentence. The government is not acting morally unless you think that the states is equally moral in their prisons in Iraq or Cuba. Depriving somebody of basic charter rights cannot be defended on any grounds except that 'might makes right'. Secret trials are the stuff of the nazi's you so abhor, why then would you want to emulate them? Even if I agreed that his stuff was horrible and a threat (which I don't, and I don't think you've ever even read them-in fact most neo-nazi's don't even refer to his writing because he is far too moderate), then you try them in a correct court of law where a person can see the evidence against them. Anything else is tyranny. And please don't try to typify my behaviour. Similar things are said all the time in Canada and nothing comes of it and I do the same thing as here-argue. I would not rob the basic charter rights of any person, even the most horrible person in the world. This is simply because if somebody is guilty of something then it is quite correct and easy to try them equitably. I hear arguments all the time justifying the government's genocidal actions towards natives. There's arguments that they deserve no special treatment because they 'weren't here that much longer than white people', that they treat each other worse, or that they are not fit to govern themselves (and we are?), or that they inflict more damage on themselves than we do, or any of a multitude of other rationales I've heard. I've certainly never advocating locking those who hold that position in a cell with no access to their attorney in a trial that doesn't let them examine witnesses, view evidence, consult experts, or present a defense. The jews have no fear of genocide in Canada, in fact Canada would be guilty of genocide if they had not sided with the americans after the second world war and refuse to let genocide describe cultural eradication. The genocidal threat here is not some nut who says some crazy stuff, it is the government that implements cultural eradication and secret trials.

[QUOTE BY= lissa] I have a story to tell you - about when I lived in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada years ago. I was in High School, and I dated someone who I was in love with. Eventually, I met his parents, and his grandparents lived across the street from him. His grandfather is German, and getting to know my boyfriend a little more, I soon discovered that his Grandfather had a secret. Although the details were never really told to me, I came to understand that he fought in the war - but not for the allies. It is also my understanding that he wasn't in the army either, he did something else. A few years later, my boyfriend and I moved in together, and at Christmas, we went to his Grandparents house on Christmas Eve. We started talking - although he barely spoke a word of English. He asked me my last name - and all of a sudden his attitude changed. You see - my grandfather also fought in the war - he fought in Italy - but that wasn't the reason why he grew to dislike me. My Grandfather was active in the Communist movement after the war, he was a member of the Communist party - and it is something I am proud of, mainly because someone in my family believed passionately about improving our way of life eventhough western culture hates Communists. He called me a "Communist Pig" - eventhough the politics in my family died when my Grandfather died long ago. I looked at him, got my jacket on, and said "I don't know what you did in the war, but let me tell you something - when you die, hell will be a good place for you Nazi pigs. They have a special place for all of you - ready and waiting". I also let him know that he resided in a country founded on acceptance and that he was a tresspasser in my country. I don't think he understood me - like I said - he barely spoke a word of English - but let me tell you - he heard the word "Nazi" and he looked shocked, almost guilty. I smiled, told everyone "Merry Christmas" - and walked home a very proud woman. [/QUOTE] A fable. Our world view has been moulded by all these fables, biased to make us feel guilty at every turns for instincts that are present in all mankind and so that must be considered healthy. Fables made to characterized the non-Jews as hateful when they defend their turf, while the communists and the Jews are presented as heroic and blameless victims of our irrational killing urges. Doesn’t it takes a direct link whit the Jewish people to emigrate in Israel? Isn’t it a “exclusivist” attitude? They are building a wall right now to isolate themselves from Palestinians: isn’t it segregation of the kind that is absolutely condemned morally, by that very same Jewish people through their ADL and B’nai Britt? This is hateful when WE are trying to preserve our identity, but it is legitimate when Jews are doing it. And WE are accused of anti-Semitism when we attack Zionism and Jewish nationalism. That little story shows a Nazy attacking lowly a teenage girl and cowardly retreating at her very first and splendid words, humiliated and absolutely lame. Like the diary of Ann Frank that as been proven a fabrication, one these fables, I doubt this story is true. Communists, proud noble people? How about the dozens of millions they themselves killed through their Bolshevik revolutions? Deaths rarely talked about. Deaths that are not commending commemorations, and Crime Against Humanity accusations. Nobody went in jail directly related to this. Lazar Kaganovitch, called the butcher of Ukraine, converted to communism in 1911 when he heard Trotsky (real name Leon Bronstein) at a meeting in a Synagogue (yes a Synagogue). He died peacefully in the early nineties in Moscow. Under Staline, he organized the confiscation of harvests and seeds from the peasants from about 1928 to the thirties, that resulted in a famine, taking millions of innocent lives. It was white people’s lives, so it is not important.

Toronto Globe and Mail Kills Review of "The Politics of Anti-Semitism" Hello, CounterPunch, I was asked to write a review of two recent books on anti-Semitism for Toronto's Globe and Mail newspaper. The two books are "The Politics of Anti-Semitism" and Phyllis Chesler's "The New Anti-Semitism." I filed the review a week ago, and was sent an email earlier this week from the editor, who expressed "real problems" with the review. The "real problems" seem to stem from the fact that I didn't slam "The Politics" (and its "out of the same litter contributors") but instead praised it while ridiculing (justifiably, I believe) the Chesler book. I have written many reviews for the Globe, as well as for the Toronto Star and other publications. (My day job is writing plays.) They have never spiked a review of mine before. I should add that I approached the Globe with the idea of reviewing "The Politics" (before I'd read it), and that they agreed, but only if I would also consider the Chesler book. I wonder if you'd be interested in looking at the review, as well as the correspondence relating to it. Yours, Jason Sherman, Toronto. [The review, filed Thursday, Nov 13.] You're Either Against Us, or You're Not For Us By Jason Sherman. The Politics of Anti-Semitism Edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair AK Press, 178 pgs. (US$12.95) The New Anti-Semitism The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It By Phyllis Chesler Wiley, 305 pgs, $38.95 It doesn't take much to get yourself called an anti-Semite these days. A few years ago I wrote a play that questioned some cherished notions about Israel. My "self-hating Jew" badge arrived in the next edition of the Canadian Jewish News. Not that I was surprised. After all, Noam Chomsky once wrote that "Left-liberal criticism of Israeli government policy since 1967 has evoked hysterical accusations and outright lies." Oppose the Israeli occupation and its treatment of the Palestinian people, he noted, and you risked being labeled "a supporter of terrorism and reactionary Arab states, an opponent of democracy, an anti-Semite, or if Jewish, a traitor afflicted with self-hatred." As two new books make clear, little has changed in the last 35 years, except perhaps that the mud is thicker, the slinging fiercer, the cry of "anti-Semite!" louder (and less credible) than ever. Muckraking journalists Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair co-edit a newsletter and website called CounterPunch (I visit the latter daily, and twice on Sunday), from the pages of which they have gathered eighteen brilliant essays on the Middle East. It's a sort of greatest hits package, called The Politics of Anti-Semitism. Among its short, sharp blasts are those by Robert Fisk, foreign correspondent for The Independent, a fierce critic of authoritarian rule wherever he finds it, who expresses genuine disgust over the hate mail he regularly receives ("Your mother was Eichmann's daughter" is among the most pleasant); American writer Norman Finklestein, whose trip to Germany to promote his controversial book The Holocaust Industry leaves him not a little soiled; and American economics professors M Shahid Alam, whose call for a "moral stand against the oppressive and unjust behaviour of Israel" leads the Boston Herald to claim: "Prof Shocks Northeastern with Defense of Suicide Bombers." The editors contribute a couple of memorable pieces. Cockburn, easily the sharpest and funniest political commentator around (among other things, he regularly makes mincemeat out of the pompous Christopher Hitchens), recounts the morality tale of Cynthia McKinney, a black congresswoman who made the mistake of calling "for a proper debate on the Middle East," after which "American Jewish money [was] showered upon her opponent." St. Clair's brilliantly retells the tale of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, which killed 34 Americans and wounded 174 others, and which more and more evidence suggests was not an accident but a deliberately planned operation ordered by war hero Moshe Dayan, and covered up by American Defense Secretary Robert McNamara. St Clair's is one of many pieces that look at Israel's influence on American politics. This is not an issue over which every contributor agrees. Jeffrey Blankfort, a radio show host at KPOO in California (would I make that up?) does something, for example, that not every leftist does: he takes on Chomsky. 95% of Chomsky's critics seem to think he goes too far in his arguments. Blankfort argues that Chomsky doesn't go far enough, at least when it comes to assessing the power of the famed Jewish lobby. (Chomsky prefers to go after the corporate elite, no matter their faith.) Blankfort seems obsessed with proving that the Jews, and ultimately Israel, control America's wealth, media, and policy decisions. He is joined by Kathleen and Bill Christison, former CIA officers, who point fingers at a Bush administration "peppered with people who have promot[ed] an agenda for Israel often at odds with existing US policy." There's no question that the American administration is full of "Israelists" (the Jerusalem Post recently named deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz its "Man of the Year"), and it's important to discuss the underpinnings of the US-Israeli relationship, but it's quite a leap to suggest that the man behind the curtain wears a felt hat and yarmulke and wants all the world to dance the hora. Just when the collection is beginning to sag under the weight of some arcane arguments, two pieces bring it to a powerful close. Israeli peace activist Yigal Bronner's memoir of helping to bring food and medicine to a Palestinian village does more than a hundred essays in evoking the tragedy of the Middle East war. And no other essay quite rises to the level of Edward Said's angry and hopeful j'accuse about what has happened to his people, and what may yet become of them: "The official Israeli policy, no matter whether Ariel Sharon uses the word 'occupation' or not or whether or not he dismantles a rusty, unused tower or two, has always been not to accept the reality of the Palestinian people as equals or even to admit that their rights were scandalously violated all along by Israel. Whereas a few courageous Israelis over the years have tried to deal with this otherwise concealed history, most Israelis and what seems like the majority of American Jews have made every effort to deny, avoid, or negate the Palestinian reality. This is why there is no peace." Phyllis Chesler begs to differ. In The New Anti-Semitism (a phrase she claims to have coined, though it's been around for decades), the American psychotherapist and author of Women and Madness sets out to warn the world about "a virulent epidemic of violence, hatred and lies that are being touted as politically correct." Touted by who, she doesn't exactly say, except to point to an amorphous group of "Islamic reactionaries and western intellectuals and progressives." (Everyone in the The Politics of Anti-Semitism would make her list.) Perhaps this "epidemic" explains the "fever [that] burned" in Chesler as she wrote: "Everything had to happen at once: reading, supervising the research, writing." There's little evidence of any of that in these overwrought pages: it's poorly researched and horribly written, sounding for the most part like an earnest book report by an over-achieving fourth grader. "The world--including many people in the Jewish world--still seems to have one standard for Jews and for the Jewish state (and it's a high standard) and another, much lower standard for everyone else," she laments, without resorting to facts to support her argument, and failing to recognize that she herself holds Israel and the Jews to that very high standard. But don't take my word for it, take hers (please, take hers). Certain "Arab-Muslims," she writes, are "barbaric and primitive; they do not hide their joy when they kill but I do not think that most American or many Jews delight in the death of their enemies in quite the same way." That's us, still chosen after all these years. Instead of argument, Chesler prefers to intuit her way through a debate. After citing a Chomsky essay which quotes Moshe Dayan saying that Palestinian refugees should be told they will "continue to live like dogs," Chesler decides that the attribution "does not sound right or in context to me." She proves equally adept at trying to take down the rest of her targets, which include Said, the American and European Left, refuseniks, the media, feminists--all of them out to get little Israel, that David among Goliaths. Not wanting to leave any doubt in the minds of her readers, the feckless Chesler resorts to an argument as old as the Jerusalem Hills to prove, once and for all, that the Jews have the ultimate claim to Israel, for "God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham and to all the other Jewish patriarchs and matriarchs." At this point, I began to understand just how high a fever Chesler must have had when she scribbled this nonsense; automatic writing, from God's mouth to her hand. A book like this always ends up biting the hand that writes it. Everyone is an anti-Semite--including, it would appear, Phyllis Chesler herself. Pg 245: "Anyone who does not distinguish between Jews and the Jewish state is an anti-Semite." Pg 209: "Each Jew must think of himself or herself as the most precious resource that Israel has at this moment." I tell you, this new anti-Semitism, no one is immune from it.

I don't understand how someone can be charged for not believing something is 100% true. That is what it comes down to. But then people have been killed for refusing to believe in God. Believe or else. I don't like that. Agreed, the Holocaust was a tragedy. Fox news does not report 100% truth. The court says news networks do not have to report the truth. There is propaganda everywhere, but only some have to pay for it? We all question things here, what if we didn't have that right? I don't like the precedent this sets. Because that's what it is....who's next?

First of all I'm going to say I disagree with ernie's views but realize that punishing someone for voicing their opinion makes you a nazi. creating "state sanctioned history" is fundementally wrong. Lets go back to the time of Church and galileo. He made the outragous claim that the earth revolved around the sun and was not the center of the universe. Now I know you're going to say "this is entirly different!" no it isn't. It is whatever group happens to be in power saying "this is the way things are period" which hopefully from the galileo example you can see it is wrong. This effects me personally because I am a 9/11 "conspiracy theorist" who believes that the US government at the very least allowed the attack to occur. I don't like believeing that but I cannot lie to myself and I really hope I am wrong. (If you think I'm the minority I'm actually the majority as 63% of canadians according to the toronto star and 50% of NYC residents according to zogby go reasearch this for yourself) By all means hope ernie is right about the holocaust not happening because then one of the worst things the human race ever did can simply be wiped off the slate of tragities that have been committed. But I am 100% sure he is wrong. But as for him "knowly spearding falsehoods" Who in their right mind would claim the holocaust didn't happen knowing the flak that they would recive? He must honestly believe it or else he wouldn't say it. Just as galileo was willing to risk his life to say what he believed was the truth Ernie does the same. Unfortunatly for Ernie he is wrong.

Good one Marcarc!! (you pop up everywhere in this forum, dontcha?) It seems to be a big debate here, but I just can't seem to relate Ernst Zundel with Civil Liberties and Privacy. Was he even an actual citizen of the country? I agree with Zeeboo and say I wish it didn't happen either. Decades later, the debate on whether it was 6 million or 1 million is still out there for discussion? Clearly, no matter what, Zundel was a little off his rocker, and we shouldn't have even given him an audience to begin with. What makes our country great is that I have the choice not to read his pamplet, or see his website! Thankfully, the majority of Canadian felt the same way too so what did he accomplish in the end? Although this country is supposed to be good, we gave a guy like the "millenium bomber" a citizenship, as well as free reign in our country. Who knows how many terrorists have slipped through the cracks in our slack and lazy system since 9/11... but the government has no problems deporting a guy like Zundel (and was very heated about it too!!), who was just yammering on and on for the most part. He didn't magically transform his keds into nukes, and so we should have just let him sit in his dark corner of the internet for eternity. You know the whole "stick and stones" song!!

[QUOTE BY= lis2005] Good one Marcarc!! (you pop up everywhere in this forum, dontcha?) It seems to be a big debate here, but I just can't seem to relate Ernst Zundel with Civil Liberties and Privacy. Was he even an actual citizen of the country? I agree with Zeeboo and say I wish it didn't happen either. Decades later, the debate on whether it was 6 million or 1 million is still out there for discussion? Clearly, no matter what, Zundel was a little off his rocker, and we shouldn't have even given him an audience to begin with. What makes our country great is that I have the choice not to read his pamplet, or see his website! Thankfully, the majority of Canadian felt the same way too so what did he accomplish in the end? Although this country is supposed to be good, we gave a guy like the "millenium bomber" a citizenship, as well as free reign in our country. Who knows how many terrorists have slipped through the cracks in our slack and lazy system since 9/11... but the government has no problems deporting a guy like Zundel (and was very heated about it too!!), who was just yammering on and on for the most part. He didn't magically transform his keds into nukes, and so we should have just let him sit in his dark corner of the internet for eternity. You know the whole "stick and stones" song!! [/QUOTE] Zundel was not off-his-rocker, he was voicing an opposing point of view....some (not all) of his views were confirmed by holocause experts who testified during his trial and that stuff is ALL on the public record. This is why they stopped trying to prosecure him and threw him in jail--they didn't want any more valuable research to become available to revisionists.

Zundel wrote a LOT of stuff, and much of it was valid, But some of the stuff he wrote shows that he certainly had writing moments when he was off his rocker, whether it was all the time or not isn't a real interesting debate.

Sorry peturbed - I don't really pay much attention to your posts - considering you happen to be the poster-child for "racial slurring".

[QUOTE BY= lis2005] Sorry peturbed - I don't really pay much attention to your posts - considering you happen to be the poster-child for "racial slurring". [/QUOTE] Sorry, I don't pay attention to your posts considering you seem to be the poster-child for character slagging, combined with no opinions of your own.

[QUOTE BY= lis2005] Sorry peturbed - I don't really pay much attention to your posts - considering you happen to be the poster-child for "racial slurring". [/QUOTE] I should also add this is a silly accusation. Acknowledging the fact that distinct races exist--which is known in an university anthropology class or psychology journal is not a slur at all. The only individual I've discussed is our new governor general--I stand by my opinion that our governor general should be Canadian born, and represent institutions such as FEDERALISM, and the institution of MARRIAGE, not LIVE IN BOYFRIENDS. Paul Martin said Michele Jean "really represents what we are"--that is obviously nonsense, she wasn't even born here and derided the country as racist when she got here. A slur is a specifically racially motivated attack on an individual. There's no need to resort to that, there are many other ways to criticize people. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'>