throw the first punch for peace.

One of the firm beliefs that I have held growing up in life was the thought of fighting. For me, I always let the other person throw the first punch. I would never be the one to throw the first punch because that whole 'knock them out before they hit you' of pre-emptive striking never really sat well in my mind. For me, I always figured that if you were out for the pre-emptive strike of 'do unto others as they would do unto you...but do it first' means that people are going to fight because everyone wants to get in the first blow. I went by the thought of waiting for the other person to throw the first punch and then retaliate on that. With that philosophy, everyone would be waiting, with weapons ready, for the other person to fire or throw the first punch and since we are waiting, there would be no war because there would be no first climax. But there was a line in one of the trailers that I saw today that made me think this might not work for all situations.

Firefighters and police people can not say "for me to protect the people, they have to be willing to protect themselves". So if I go out with that thought, then if people got into a position where they needed the firefighters or the police, they havent taken care of themselves. A person that went to bed smoking a cigarette wont need a firefighter cause they didnt protect themselves. A person that is getting mugged cause they walked down a dark alley or in a dark park, didnt take care of themselves by not walking down a fully lit path/street.

what about "a man must be willing to put his wife first in all that he does"? Why doesnt the wife have to put the husband first in all that she does? what happens if the sacrifice is something that both cant be done? man makes equal pay as the woman does living in the town that they are in but the man hates his job and the woman loves her. Suddenly a job opens in another town that the man loves but the woman would have to give up her job that she loves to go to one that she isnt too happy with (same job that she loves, but the co-w0rkers are horrible and are not as great as the team she has). If at that point, should the woman sacrifice her happiness and job to make the man happy (putting the husband first before the wife), or should the man continue to sacrifice his happiness for the happiness of the wife? I know the happy medium is to find something that says "I sacrificed this, you sacrifice that, we compromise and the world is a happy place" but why cant it be as easy as the first punch rule? there never is an "ok, you threw that punch first, I throw this punch first and there is peace" but there is an 'ok, you sacrificed this, I will sacrifice that for peace in the household"? and if there is a case of "I will sacrifice all for you, you sacrifice nothing for me and there is peace" (like the waiting for the other person to throw the first punch), then the one that is sacrificing all is called a spineless, henpecked, pussywhipped man (or the woman is called an oppressed, dominated, subserviant female).

Guess when it comes to life, like all things in life like food/alocohol/drugs/pleasure/pain, it is 'everything in moderation'. Do this a certain amount of times, do that a certain amount of times and in then end, when you have done it all a reasonable amount of times, you might find peace in your life.

player snitch...

While I have had rather good experiences with internet dating, I know that there are some people out that that havent. Granted, I think my good experiences are because I really dont see any experience as 'bad' since you gain experience, information, life lessons and all that good stuff. Never have I left an experience and thought it was a waste of time or useless. Well, perhaps watching 'The Beach' with Leonardo DiCaprio, but that is another story.

Though, for those people that want to do double checking, there is this site out there:

www.playersnitch.com

It is rather a funny and cool site where you can search the name of a person or handle of the person from an internet site and see if anyone else has had a bad experience with them. Of course, I am sure you have to do a little bit of self evaluation since the person could have been a nice person but the one that is doing the report is a vindictive immature person. After all, no one likes to be jilted, and once they are jilted and if you are not mature enough to say "oh well, it wasnt meant to be" and move on but want to get your revenge or pint of blood, you will do pretty much anything to get your revenge.

Though, all in all, it is a rather amusing read to go through and see some pictures and people.

cant say a word

man, I would so love to say something, but I can't. I mean, I have been told that a person can't say something about another country or culture if they are not living in it because they dont know what it is like. Sort of like going to someone elses house and telling them how to raise their kids. If you dont agree with how a country is ruling their people or saying things, you cant really say anything or do anything because the people have the right in that country to decide whether to stay or leave so therefore you cant force them to follow your way.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/259036/1/.html

I read this article and one little line got me:
**
At the same time, Mr Lee refers to how generous state welfare benefits for the employed and the elderly have led to the weakening of the family unit in many Western countries.

"When somebody loses his job, he falls back on state unemployment insurance. When he grows old, he relies on state pensions and medical care. As a result, family members often feel little responsibility to care for one another," says PM Lee.
**

Thanks for making our 'western' culture so horrible there. I know, it is a horrible thing Mr PM Lee for the gov't to be expected to take some sympathy and responsibility for the people that elect them and give them power. I mean, gov't of the west is really different than that of the east, or at least Singapore. You see, over here the gov't is supposed to take care of the people they govern, the gov't here is not just here to take taxes and pay leaders millions of dollars. Remind me what is your salary? are you being paid $2.6 million or just $2 million? and how about your daddy that keeps hanging on and making job positions for himself to help keep Singapore under an iron fist since only he can run the country, what is he making? a good $2.8 million as well? guess that means in just your family alone you are pulling down over $5 million a year, not counting your wives and brothers and uncles that are CEOs of high corporations and all in Singapore. I mean, you are truly a blessed family to have such luck to have really smart people in your family so that they can rise in ranks of NS so fast to gain notice of all these great corporations to get these high positions. Guess it is kind of easy for you to take care of your elders, since you have millions to throw around.

Guess it is up to the Singaporean people to take care of their elders because the Singaporean gov't really isnt going to do it. It isnt because they are cold or distant or just looking out for the 'elites' best interests. I think it is just really tough love. After all, makes perfect sense. If the gov't is going to care for the elders, then the family really doesnt have to do anything but let someone else do the work. But if the gov't doesnt care for the elders (as much as it hurts them deep down in their very bones) then that will only strengthen the family ties. Guess that is why the suicide rate of elders is down so much in Singapore. Apparently 'In the last five years, an average of 65 elderly people committed suicide each year in Singapore' (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070216/5/singapore258809.html) Glad there is a big drop in suicide rate in Singapore. Guess we shouldnt say that in this 'horrible western society that has lead to the degredation of family', the suicide rate of the elderly in 1981 was nearly 41 per 100,000 to drop down to 27.5 per 100,000 in 1997. http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/health01.htm

now, most would say "well that is the same, so Singapore is doing good". You are the size of ONE of our cities! Your leaders are paid nearly 4 times that of our leaders, and yet your country is the size of ONE of our cities. You'd think that to pay a leader so much to run just a small city that you would have money enough to scatter around to help all those people under your rule and not just line your pockets.

But, I would love to say something like that, but too bad I can not. oh well, guess I will just have to bury it deep down and not say anything...

another horrible sentence

in relation to my previous post...*sigh* cant really say more now can I? except, I dont agree with the sentence. It is far too light a sentence for killing your best friend (or any human being), though I still can't say that death is justified either.

Tue, February 13, 2007
Ten years for stabbing, dismemberment
Calgary man killed his best friend
By CP

CALGARY — A Calgary man who killed and then chopped up his best friend has been sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Judge John Bascom gave Dean Aaron Commanda two years credit for time he’s already served in jail after the 23-year-old pleaded guilty to manslaughter and interfering with a dead body.
A year ago Commanda and his friend Chad Largy got into a drunken confrontation.
He stabbed Largy, cut up his body and discarded the parts in trash bins throughout Calgary.
Some of his remains have never been found.

Largy’s mother, Lorraine Harris, says she’s upset that Commanda has never shown any remorse for her son’s death.

signs of the times

From what I remember of my brief encounters with the legal area and legal studies, I believe I was told that crime and punishment is all based on what the society at the time feel is appropriate. If there is a small amount of a certain crime, then there is a low punishment for that offence. Just as if there is no real out pour of hatred of a certain crime, then they really dont enforce the crime that hard. For instance, jaywalking in Canada. This is a crime that is not really that outpouring or an epidemic, nor is it one that is really hated in the country. There is some concern and if a police officers sees you doing something like this really stupid (like trying to run across a busy 4 lane highway during rush hour traffic) that they 'might' stop you and give you a $57 fine or something. We arent talking jail time, nor are we talking that the police are out and if they are chasing a bank robber at high speed, will see you jaywalk and stop the pursuit just to grab your ass.

Where am I going with this? In Canada we have had a recent bunch of killings due to stabbings, gun shots, beatings...you name it, Albertans seem to be wanting to do to another individual. There was a case in Red Deer where a group of teenage girls poisoned another girls slurpee out of jealousy; a gang of teenagers beat a lone teenager over a disagreement with a The most recent is the case of Nina Courtepatte (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2007/01/22/trial-ninac.html). The background to this case is basically a group of 5 people ranged between 17 to 36 stalked out West Edmonton Mall, selected a person at random which was Nina, lead her away and then 'allegedly' (since the trial is still ongoing and all are innocent til proven guilty) kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered her. The reason for this act of violence? they were 'looking for someone to kill'. No real hatred to this girl, no real reason, no real rhyme, they just wanted to see what it would be like to beat the hell out of someone and kill them.

I have been following this one (along with Pickton as well, the BC pig farmer that is being accused of murdering nearly 49 prostitutes in the BC island area and burying them in his pig farm, making him either the worst or first serial killer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pickton) with a bit of interest since I have noticed that crimes in Canada are suddenly taking a big turn for the worse. It is almost like crimes have no punishment, to the point where crimes are almost being acceptable. Going back to the point where punishments are either light because the actions are becoming more acceptable by society or because they aren't that common. Well, they are obviosly common, since people seem to be killing or beating anyone that looks at them the worst way. So, I guess by the light sentences that people are getting it is because judges and society seems to think that this type of barbarianism is acceptable. A recent poll in the Edmontonsun (www.edmontonsun.ca) asked about capital punishment, and these were the results:

Should capital punishment be reintroduced in Canada?
Yes 86%
No 14%
Total Votes for this Question: 1604

a little history about capital punishment in Canada. Before Canada eliminated the death penalty in 1976, 1,481 people were sentenced to death, with 710 executed. Of those executed, 697 were men and 13 were women. However, interesting note is that Canada didnt abolish the death penalty til 1976, but last people to be executed in Canada was in 1953 for women (Marguerite Pitre on January 9, 1953) and 1962 for men (Ronald Turpin, 29, and Arthur Lucas, 54). Guess that means that from 1962 to 1976 there were no murders or anything in Canada huh? nope, it means that the criteria to put people to death was incredibly high and it wasnt just a case of "you kill and you are killed" attitude. Why was it abolished? it was a close free vote but it was taken away because people questioned the perfection of the legal system and wondered how many innocent people might accidentally be put to death only to have discovered later that they were innocently punished for their crimes.

Now I wonder, at what point should we bring back the death penalty? does two wrongs make a right? perhaps if Canada had the death penalty this crime would not have been commited since the reason that the individuals stated for doing this act of violence was to see someone die. Perhaps many other lives would have been saved had the culprits had the chance to sit back and think that if they did this act then they would have to pay the ultimate price if caught. But what about the crimes where a person acts out in an act of uncontrollable anger and kills someone, then if they acted outside their scope of mental mind, can they be put to death? or what of the argument of the slippery slope? where if we say that 'only acts of extreme violence can be punished by death', then where do we put the line of 'extreme violence'? where is the line always drawn when you put the line in the sand? to the extreme right or left? only Hitler and Sadam should be put to death, but others that kill only one shall live? or shall we go to the other extreme where even killing one person is punishable by death? because once you get into the grey area then you start the paradoxical question of 'how many grains of sand makes a heap?' you put two grains of sand on a table, you dont have a heap; you add one more and have two grains, you dont have a heap. So, how many grains of sand must you add before you get a heap? you kill one person in an act of rage (suppose you caught the person raping your wife, and you kill them) should you be put to death? Suppose you kill two people in an act of rage (gang rape perhaps?), should you be put to death? at what point is the line drawn that says "you did extremely bad, we dont want to try to rehabilitate you' and take them from this earth?
I also wonder if the survey done by the Edmonton sun actually has a good showing of all the people in Canada concerning reinstatment of the death penalty. After all, the problem with surveys that require people from choosing whether to say something or not, you usually get just the hard core people. Those that really want the death penalty will want to speak up because they are enraged by the crime in question. Those that are either on the fence, or perhaps dont agree with it, will sluff it off and not vote because they dont want to waste their time on something that really has no weight. Also, I wonder if the proximity of the Nina crime is foremost in the peoples mind so they are not voting due to rational and logical thought and information but are those small minded people that are only thinking of rage, revenge and 'eye for an eye' justice? So many thoughts, though wonder, with the increase of senseless and mass crimes that are coming to light in the news these days (killer slurpees, kids through boulders from overpasses, gang beatings over cell phones and drive by shootings), if there was the free vote in parliament these days, how many people would stand up and say that 'death for death is wrong' and how many would actually say 'death for death makes me as bad as the person that pulls the trigger'. Have we come to the point where seeing so much death happen on the streets to tohse law abiding citizens that we, the law abiding citizens ourselves, are about to lower ourselves to the level of the barbarians and heathens on the street doing the crimes? In this matter, does an ounce of prevention really be better than a pound of cure?

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Alberta/2007/02/11/3586998-sun.html

Ultimate penalty City teen's slaying rekindles debate over capital punishment By MICHELLE MARK, SUN MEDIA

The vicious rape and slaying of 13-year-old Nina Courtepatte has a group of Calgarians lobbying the federal government to reinstate the death penalty. Merle Terlesky says he is heading to Edmonton's Court of Queen's Bench tomorrow to represent a citizen group that is outraged anyone could be capable of such a horrendous crime and says they should be punished accordingly. "We're trying to draw some national attention to reigniting the debate on capital punishment," Terlesky said yesterday. Terlesky acknowledged that no verdict has been made in the Courtepatte case.

"Is it in the interest of society at large to house (criminals) after committing such a heinous crime? I question if someone like that is rehabilitatable."

Courtepatte was sexually assaulted, choked, beaten and stabbed April 4, 2005, at a golf course near Stony Plain.

Court heard that she had been randomly selected at West Edmonton Mall by the alleged killers.
Gary Hunt, whose son Josh, 16, was slain at a south Edmonton home Oct. 14, said he's "50-50" on the death penalty. A 17-year-old was charged with second-degree murder in his son's homicide.

"I believe in certain circumstances that (capital punishment) would be absolutely necessary," said Hunt.

In cases where it's clear a murder was planned, and that the killer is likely to kill again, said Hunt, a strong case could be made for capital punishment. But, Hunt continued, "You don't want to do anything for revenge. Two wrongs don't make a right." While Terlesky admits the death penalty might not deter people from committing crimes, it could bring justice to the victim's loved ones. "We certainly welcome the Harper government's new initiatives on changes to the Young Offenders Act, but are judges going to carry through on the full sentences? That's a problem as well, even when the rules are there, the judges aren't enforcing it." Michael Erin Briscoe, 34, from Edmonton, and Joseph Wesley Laboucan, 19, from Fort St. John, B.C., are currently on trial facing charges of aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping and first-degree murder in Courtepatte's death. A 17-year-old boy pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and is awaiting sentencing. A 17-year-old girl and a 16-year-old girl were also charged with first-degree murder.

Canada abolished capital punishment in 1976.

another payout?

Let's see...Canadian officials give false information to the Americans, the Americans send him to Syria where they torture him and he returns to Canada and Canadian Gov't gives $10.5 million to say sorry. This Canadian-chinese citizen gets picked up in another country, sent to China and is 'tortured' and Canadian officials are not around to help save him. How much are we going to be paying for this one? $5 million enough you think? I think it is worth a cool $6 million at least, dont you think?


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070208/celil_070208/20070208?hub=Canada

Family claims Huseyin Celil tortured in China
Updated Thu. Feb. 8 2007 11:32 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The family of a Chinese-Canadian imprisoned in China on terror-related charges spoke with CTV News inside the country, despite the fear that police would arrest them for talking to the foreign press.


Huseyin Celil's sister, mother and older brother met CTV's Steve Chao to speak out about his alleged mistreatment.


"He is being tortured by Chinese police," said Celil's mother. "They forced him to sign a confession, or he would be put in a hole and buried alive."


Celil himself has told a courtroom he was tortured by secret police. However, no Canadian envoys were in the courtroom Friday when Celil, a former Muslim leader from Hamilton, made the rare appearance. His sister and son attended.


In response to the report, the federal government said it dispatched diplomats to Urumqi, China, with orders they remain there indefinitely, The Globe and Mail reports.


Celil has been in Chinese custody on terror-related charges since March, when he was detained in Uzbekistan while visiting his wife's family, then sent to China under an extradition agreement between the two nations.


"He's just a loving family man who cares for his children and wants peace," said his mother.


"All I want is for a chance to see him one last time."


China has refused to recognize Celil's Canadian citizenship and has denied him access to Canadian consular officials. His Canadian lawyer has been unable to speak with him, and his wife Kamila Telendibaeva hasn't seen him in almost a year.


His family says the 38-year-old is being persecuted because he is an Uighur Muslim and a political dissident who fled his homeland in the 1990s.


The Uighur people have demanded autonomy, angering Chinese officials who have long accused members of the Muslim minority group of terrorism.


Referring to Celil as "Mr. Yu," China's assistant foreign affairs minister He Yafei said he "is suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. He is a key member of a terrorist organization called Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement."


Celil's imprisonment has caused friction between Canada and China -- a nation whose human rights record has been publicly questioned by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, among others.


"We believe in the rule of law," He Yafei told CTV's Mike Duffy Live


"Any criminal should be brought to justice. We should care of the human rights of the victims of terrorist attacks."


Harper pointedly spoke about Celil with Chinese President Hu Jintao while in Vietnam, where the two leaders were among 21 gathered for the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit last November.


Harper also referred to Celil while en route to that conference.


"When a Canadian citizen is taken from a third country and imprisoned in China, this is a serious concern to this country," he said.


More recently, unnamed Canadian officials this week took to the media to slam Canadian diplomats for their failure to attend the hearing, and there were reports that Harper himself was upset at the handling of the case, The Globe reports.


Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay's spokesman, Dan Dugas, told The Globe that MacKay had personally called the Canadian embassy in Beijing.


"The Chinese government is not co-operating with the Canadian mission in China and we aren't going to stop asking them for what's happening with Mr. Celil," said Dugas. He would not comment directly on claims Harper was angered that no official was in the court.


"I can tell you he is not happy either," Dugas said, referring to MacKay. "He's asking for answers. He wants to know what is being done and what the next steps are going to be."


With a report by CTV's Steve Chao in Urumqi, China

what a way to treat endangered species

How is this for freaky. Mother nature takes a turn, merging two types of bears that really dont mix well with others, and then what do humans do? pull out a gun, shoot it dead and then mount it. I mean, honest mistake, never seen that type of bear, thought it was something else but come on. What type of person are you when you manage to kill a one of a kind hybrid bear that is new to nature with a single shot and then argue that you cant keep the hide? shouldnt you feel some sort of remorse or give some sort of apology for mother nature that very well could have been trying to start a new strain of bear? oh well, what can I say? Humans...cant live with us...might as well start over.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/05/10/pizzly-grolar-bear.html


Strange bear was grizzly-polar hybrid, tests show
Last Updated: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 11:18 AM ET
CBC News

The DNA of a bear shot in the Northwest Territories in April shows it was a hybrid of polar bear and grizzly — perhaps the first ever seen in the wild.

Scientists with the territory's Department of Environment and Natural Resources compared the animal's genetic makeup with samples taken from polar bears in the area and with DNA previously collected from grizzly bears along the coast to the south.

American hunter Jim Martell will be allowed to keep the pelt of the hybrid bear he shot on April 16.(Courtesy of Jim Martell)They concluded that the bear shot by Jim Martell was indeed a rare hybrid of the two types of bear. Officials say it could be the first recorded polar-grizzly bear hybrid found in the wild.

Martell, a sport hunter from the United States, was on a guided hunt when he shot the bear on April 16 near Nelson Head on southern Banks Island.

Since it looked like a polar bear but had strange colouration, the hide was turned over to the Environment and Natural Resources department for testing.

It was considered nearly impossible for the two species to mate, since polar bears mate on the ice, while grizzlies mate on land.

'Some of the elders here in town say in the past there's been grizzly sightings but usually they fight.'-Hunting guide Roger Kuptana

"It's a total surprise," said Roger Kuptana, Martell's guide.

He said the relationship between polar and grizzly bears is usually more adversarial.

"Some of the elders here in town say in the past there's been grizzly sightings but usually they fight."

Additional analyses are underway to determine whether the mother was a grizzly bear or a polar bear and to determine the age of the bear.
Martell had a tag that allowed him to hunt polar bears, but conservation officers were threatening to charge him with shooting a grizzly. It could have landed him 12 months in jail.
Martel wasn't very happy, having spent $50,000 on his trip. He was also worried he wouldn't be able to take the hide back home with him to Idaho.

ENR will return the hide to Martell, who is already back in the territory – on a grizzly hunt.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/04/26/polar-bear-060426.html

difference in religions

Not much to say on this one. I mean, I remember a point during a year or two ago when a picture of a religious person caused embassies to be torched, riots in the streets, death contracts being given out for the heads of the cartoonists and a general hatred towards different religions. Yeah, you know which ones I am talking about, that cartoon showing Muhammod in a bomb turbin. Now, look at what happens when you start mocking the Catholic religion. You can now buy a beard and crown of thorns and pretend to be the 'king of kings' in the around the Vatican, the big head office of the whole catholic religion. Not really the big spot where all the things happened, but where all the paperwork is done and the head leader is living. Sort of like Ottawa in Canada. Not really where all the things were signed and formed and stuff, but where the big wigs meet for the whole meeting thing, the Centre Of The Universe in Canadian minds (at least for the easterners).

now that leads me to wonder, are Muslims fanatics and just overly charged about their religion and take it to extremes, or are they normal and Catholics are just really 'weekend worshipers' and dont take their religion serious enough? and who would buy a crown of thorns and beard just to walk around the vatican like a really tacky tourist? oh well, if you build it, they will come...if you sell it, they will buy.


WHAT WOULD HE SAY
Vatican officials are in a huff after Jesus fancy dress kits went on sale in Italy.
For about $20 Cdn, the kit contains a plastic crown of thorns and a false beard.
Vatican priest Father Vittorino Gorss said: "This is an insult and blasphemous to millions of believers."
One shopkeeper selling the kit in the buildup to Lent said: "I can't see what the problem is. It's only a wig and beard."
Ah, spoken like a true nonbeliever.

how many languages do we need???

now, this has got to have me with mixed emotions and all. Though, granted not really passionate emotions or anything considering I am really not a hockey fan. I know, I could quite possibly be the only naturally born male Canadian in this whole country that really is not a hockey fan, as well as being quite possibly the only straight male in the world that really does not like sports that is not a computer geek/nerd. After reading this though I had to wonder, how many languages do we need to be sung at the beginning of hockey games?

I remember a blog awhile ago by an immigrant to Canada that was saying that they should make some form of Indian (the real Indians from India, not the old term for the natives of Canada) language a national language of Canada because there were so many of them speaking the language here now. I had a bit of a problem with that, but if we start singing the national anthem in every single language that is widely spoken in Canada then we might as well start singing the song on Tuesday night around 9pm to play a game on Wednesday evening at 8pm. With Canada being the great mosic that we are (remember we are not a 'melting pot' like America is since we try not to force all new people to become 'like us' but instead try to make all peoples beliefs, culture and religions co-exist with all those that already exist), we have so many different languages from different cultures around the world we could not sing all the languages at a game and not leave any out.

So, that being said, I figure what should happen is we sing the national athem in two languages, our two national languages of French and English. That is it, two languages, two songs, then we play our game, drink our beer, throw our octopi (when needed) and leave it at that. Cree, chinese, Inuit, Blackfoot, Iroquis, Hungarian, Polish, Russian, Indian of all dialects and every other language out there can be sung at home if they want, just stay off the ice thanks.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070203/cree_anthem_070203/20070203?hub=Canada

Cree teen sings 'Ka Kanatahk' for hockey fans
Updated Sat. Feb. 3 2007 11:55 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff

A Cree teenager became the first to sing O Canada -- or Ka Kanatahk -- in the Cree language at the start of an NHL hockey game.

Akin Shirt, 13, of the Saddle Lake Cree Nation performed in front of about 20,000 fans before the Calgary Flames and Vancouver Canucks faced off Saturday night at Calgary's PenGrowth Saddledome.

"Cree is a beautiful language and it's spoken among aboriginals across Canada and it's great to have this exposure on a language and for me to share this with canadians," she told reporters after an afternoon rehearsal.

"Each time I hear her, it brings a lot of emotion inside," said her mother, Jean Cardinal.
Shirt actually lives in Edmonton with her parents. She's a Grade 8 student at the Victoria School of Performing and Visual Arts there.

Besides participating in three choirs, Shirt takes guitar lessons. She counts Inuit singer Susan Aglukark as a role model.

While this was her first time in front of an NHL crowd, Shirt performed the anthem in front of the Saddle Lake Warriors junior B hockey team last year.

In fact, she turned into something of a good-luck charm for them.

"Whenever I sang for them, they won, so I'm 6 and 0 right now ... I'm hoping I can go for seven wins," Shirt said.
If you're wondering what side she was on, Shirt was wearing a Calgary Flames jersey.
How did she get her shot at the big time?
Chief Eddy Makokis of the Saddle Lake Cree Nation happened to be playing golf with one of the Flames owners last summer.

"We asked general manager Darryl Sutter to see if they could get her in," he said.
The Flames asked for an audition tape.
"I thought my goodness, this is going to be wild," said Geordie MacLeod, a spokesman for the club. "She sounded great of course."

how much freedom of religion is correct?

This is where I always have a problem. Religion is a personal thing, but at what age do you take your religious beliefs onto that of your children? The law usually states that children under the age of 16 are the wards of the parents and the parents have legal say on what does and does not happen to the individual. In the event that the choice might hurt the child, then the state can say whether or not it happens. But what parent, in their right mind, would possibly say "I dont consent to this cause it goes against my religious beliefs" and then watch their child die and still have the right to stand up and say "I am a good parent"? Shouldnt religion and personal belief take a back seat to the love and care of your child? I know that in Catholic religion, God ordered Abraham (at least I think it was Abraham, could have been a few cause I am bad with names but good with details) to take his son up to the top of a mountain and then kill him to prove his love for God. Luckily at the last second, an angel came and stopped the killing blow and said "gotcha..God was just messing with your mind, but you did a good thing showing your belief in him".

This was one story that always had me set a little off ease with the Cathlolic religion. How can you worship a deity that would say 'kill your own blood to prove your love for me'? just cause God supposedly (in the book) had his own son killed by Romans to prove his love for mankind, are we to expect to do that on a regular basis?

Personally, when it comes to something like this, I would say that the law has every right to step in and do whatever they possibly can to ensure the safety and lives of those in society. A doctor has been to medical school, knows what can and can not happen to a person if a surgery or other procedure is done and therefore should have a say on what can and should be done. We are not talking about a TV set here taken in to FutureShop and given to the repairman and the repairman saying "the picture tube is going, I can put in a new transitor to make it last another 30 years" and then the person going "sorry, transistors are against my religion" and then throwing the dead TV away. We are talking about a living, breathing human being that you are given by either nature or the grace of the deity of your choice to protect and ensure their safety. Put you own personal religious beliefs at the side of the road and do what it takes to save that little persons life. If you have a problem with that, or your religious beliefs might stop that from happening, do that little life a favour, and the rest of the world, and stop reproducing. Babies are a gift, a treasure and a miracle given to you for a brief moment, don't fuck it up!

****

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070131/sextups_seized_070201/20070201?hub=Canada

Sextuplets' parents want apology for transfusions
Updated Thu. Feb. 1 2007 8:47 AM ET
CTV.ca News Staff

A B.C. Jehovah's Witness couple will demand an apology from the province over its decision to allow three of their four surviving sextuplets to have blood transfusions -- a practice that goes against their religion.

The infants were born prematurely, and two of them have already died.

One of the children was given a transfusion on Wednesday, while the other two were transfused earlier.

"The next thing is they'll be in court likely in February and they'll challenge the government and ask the courts to freeze the government's ability to have these children removed for further blood transfusions," said CTV's Vancouver Bureau Chief Todd Battis.

"And also they'll be asking for an apology from the government. And what they're really upset about is that they didn't get the chance to intervene with the judge on their behalf."

Their lawyer, Shane Brady, said Wednesday the family is upset that the transfusions were done against their wishes. In an affidavit, the parents said they "could not bear to be at the hospital when they were violating our little girl. We took our immense sadness and grief and tried to console each other in private."

"We want the best medical care for our children and want them to live. We have consented to all required treatment. We will not, however, consent to blood transfusions," they said in the court documents.

Brady appeared in B.C. Supreme Court on Wednesday to challenge the seizure order, which was implemented Friday without a court hearing. But the province abruptly handed control of the children back to the parents when they challenged the order.

However, the parents plan to press on and a court date has been set for Feb. 22 and 23 to hear them.

Supreme Court of Canada decisions from 1995 and 1999 gave parents the right to present evidence at any seizure hearings, said Brady. He has previously represented Jehovah's Witness families in such cases.

Dr. Kerry Bowman, medical ethicist at Toronto's Mount Sinai Hospital, told CTV's Canada AM on Thursday that the issue "raises deep questions in this country about people's right to religious choice."

"They could grow up to say I feel my rights as a child were violated, or not," Bowman said.
However, he pointed out that the hospital was primarily concerned about the well-being of the children.

"These babies, I think in my opinion, are in a lot of trouble," he said. "Two are gone already, they were born pre-term, there were six of them -- all those kinds of things -- so hopefully they can build a very strong argument for saving these babies' lives for these interventions.
B.C. Minister of Children and Families Tom Christensen would not discuss the specifics of the case.

However, Christensen said: "We don't take any such action without a great deal of forethought, recognizing that it's a significant step for the state to interfere in a family."
Doctors have an obligation if they believe a child is in danger, he said.
Brady, however, said the transfusions made little difference to the condition of the infants. He described them as being in stable condition.
The government made the seizure last week to permit the transfusions.

The sextuplets were born in the first week of January at the B.C. Women's Hospital. They were almost three months premature and were about the size of an outstretched hand.
While doctors said they had a good chance of survival, they would face significant challenges. For example, infants that are premature have underdeveloped lungs, problems with eating and weak immune systems.

The parents have chosen to remain anonymous and have not spoken to the media since the children's birth.

With a report from CTV's Todd Battis and files from The Canadian Press