Peacemaker: Subjective Vs. Objective.

ker: Subjective Vs. Objective.violence will be the deaths primarily of innocent
In Marlet August 17, 2006 issue, Dan Ben-Aron, thepeople."
author of "AIDS conference shunned by Harper"There are more than one ways to express our
article, Mr. Harper is known for his lack of words,opinion. I would like to see Mr. Harper would be
which very noticeable from his decision of "notgentler to others in his speech. We have the right to
attending the Toronto conference. The source saysexpress them, but not at the expense of others;
Mr. Harper decision not to attend a major internationalHOWEVER, I do feel that a leader of a country shall
humanitarian conference in Toronto is consistent withoffer vision for citizen when the opinions are
the views of Canadian politicians and theirscattered. Surely, government needs to listen and
constituents." (p5)respect all citizens' right, including freedom of
I agree. I think it is also partially Liberal problem,different opinions, but leaders exist because they
because Liberal had been in office for so long. I feelhave a role in providing guidance when we face
that it just another political game, so I laughed souncertainty. We voted and entrusted our
hard. It is Canadians problem.government to make prompt decision when we are
Google: conciliator: someone who tries to bring peacein crisis or in needs of unity.
Conciliators do not:MOREOVER, we need to make a stance even we
Make decisions for disputing parties;are peacemaker. If A says he is protecting animal
Make judgments about who is right, who is wrong orright and trying to make peace between human and
what the outcome of the dispute should be;animal, that is a stance. People probably will not claim
Tell people what to do;that when A is trying to defend the right of the
Make rulings;animal, that A is being unfair. We all can handle our
Force parties to participate in the conciliation process.own problems, but when our life is threatened, we
"Canada as peacekeeper is no longer valid…[Scott]need people to support us. And it is perfectly fine
Taylor, who has been a professional soldier, wartoo to take neutral, as long as we really
correspondent, and bestselling author of five bookscommunicate to both sides of the parties.
on the Canadian military, doesn't buy Prime MinisterAnd actually, all the objective goals started with
Stephen Harper's 'we don't cut and run' stance onsubjective ones. Use last example, A really loves
Afghanistan. 'We have more of a reputation ofdogs, so he/she starts to work in a pet clinic. The
cutting and running than we have of staying theoriginal goal is subjective. The objective goal might be
course" The Epoch Times, August 24-30th issue.trying to build the bond between his clients and his
Google: stance: position: a rationalized mental attitudedogs.
According to The Epoch Times, Canada's foreignSeptember 22, 1862: President Lincoln issues
policy is changing to align more with our neighborEmancipation Proclamation, granting freedom to
country, United States. Apparently, in July 19, 2006slaves in areas of the South in active rebellion on 1
issues of National Post's article, "Neutral stanceJanuary 1863. He took his stance.
rejected--Opposition criticizes Harper's tough talk""Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. He was the pioneer
echo this comment: the Interim federal Liberal leader[…] of Satyagraha — resistance through mass civil
and former foreign affairs minister Bill Graham wasdisobedience strongly founded upon ahimsa (total
quoted, "Canadian are becoming more align withnon-violence) came to be one of the strongest
America, that Canada needs to keep some distancedriving philosophies of the Indian Independence
so it can be part of a diplomatic solution to the MiddleMovement, and has inspired movements for civil
East conflict," after he heard Mr. Harper repeated hisrights and freedom across the world" Gandhi took a
defense of Israel's right to live peacefully,stance.
condemning the violence of Hezbollah terrorists andNot getting involved or offering a stance when
speaking out against the suffering of innocent peoplesomeone is surely in needs of representation of his
in Lebanon and Gaza -- responsibility for which he laidher interests is not really a peacemaker. Expressing
squarely at the feet of Hezbollah in Lebanon andour stance needs not to be violence and we will not
Hamas, the terrorist organization that forms theknow what the result might be when we haven't
government of the Palestinian Authority.tried to stand up for what we believe. Even if we
Agree and disagree.are unsure what our stances are, we could have
I totally disagree with the following aggressive andtried a timeout and at least protect the basic human
judgmental comment of Mr. Harper. "Hezbollah'sright such as mutual respect when the two country
objective is violence. Hezbollah believes that throughor individual are negotiating-- Just because someone
violence it can create, it can bring about theis wrong, that doesn't give another person right to
destruction of Israel. Violence will not bring about thelabel others such as "axis of evil" [1]
destruction of Israel ... and inevitably the result of theAt a matter of fact, we all take a stance.