# Respect our values or Leave



## zipperhead_cop (2 Feb 2006)

I just read this transcript, and thought it was a pretty straight forward bit of dialoge from a politician:

*
Australian Broadcasting Corporation

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1444603.htm

Broadcast: 23/08/2005

Respect Australian values or leave: Costello
Reporter: Tony Jones


TONY JONES: On the morning of the Prime Minister's Islamic summit, Mr Howard was greeted by his Treasurer's surprising contribution to the debate on the front page of The Australian newspaper. The headline read: "Costello tells firebrand clerics to get out of Australia". 

Well, early in the day Peter Costello was not suggesting that any of the firebrands be deported. But by the time he spoke to us, that notion appeared to have matured. 

His latest intervention into topics of national interest comes only days after his speech to the Australian-American leadership dialogue in which he focussed on growing anti-Americanism in the world. "That phenomenon", he later told the Sunday program, "Can easily morph into anti-Westernism, which picks up and encapsulates Australia and threatens our interests as well." 

So was he suggesting that our close relationship with America makes us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks? I spoke to Peter Costello in our Melbourne studio earlier this evening. 

Peter Costello, thanks for joining us. 

PETER COSTELLO: Good to be with you, Tony. 

TONY JONES: Now, over the past 24 hours you've been repeating the notion that migrants, evidently Islamic migrants, who don't like Australia, or Australian values, should think of packing up and moving to another country. Is that a fair assessment? 

PETER COSTELLO: What I've said is that this is a country, which is founded on a democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a secular state. Our laws are made by the Australian Parliament. If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you. This is not the kind of country where you would feel comfortable if you were opposed to democracy, parliamentary law, independent courts and so I would say to people who don't feel comfortable with those values there might be other countries where they'd feel more comfortable with their own values or beliefs. 

TONY JONES: It sounds like you're inviting Muslims who don't want to integrate to go to another country. Is it as simple as that? 

PETER COSTELLO: No. I'm saying if you are thinking of coming to Australia, you ought to know what Australian values are. 

TONY JONES: But what about if you're already here and you don't want to integrate? 

PETER COSTELLO: Well, I'll come to that in a moment. But there are some clerics who have been quoted as saying they recognise two laws. They recognise Australian law and Sharia law. There's only one law in Australia, it's the Australian law. For those coming to Australia, I think we ought to be very clear about that. We expect them to recognise only one law and to observe it. 

Now, for those who are born in Australia, I'd make the same point. This is a country which has a Constitution. Under its Constitution, the state is secular. Under its constitution, the law is made by the parliament. Under its Constitution, it's enforced by the judiciary. These are Australian values and they're not going to change and we would expect people, when they come to Australia or if they are born in Australia, to respect those values. 

TONY JONES: I take it that if you're a dual citizen and you have the opportunity to leave and you don't like Australian values, you're encouraging them to go away; is that right? 

PETER COSTELLO: Well, if you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country which practises it, perhaps then that's a better option. 

TONY JONES: But isn't this the sort of thing you hear in pubs, the meaningless populism you hear on talkback radio? Essentially, the argument is if you don't like it here, you should go back home. 

PETER COSTELLO: No. Essentially, the argument is Australia expects its citizens to abide by core beliefs - democracy, the rule of law, the independent judiciary, independent liberty. You see, Tony, when you come to Australia and you go to take out Australian citizenship you either swear on oath or make an affirmation that you respect Australia's democracy and its values. That's what we ask of people that come to Australia and if they don't, then it's very clear that this is not the country - if they can't live with them - whose values they can't share. Well, there might be another country where their values can be shared. 

TONY JONES: Who exactly are you aiming this at? Are you aiming it at young Muslims who don't want to integrate or are you aiming it at clerics like Sheikh Omran or Abu Bakr both from Melbourne? 

PETER COSTELLO: I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that that is false. It's not the situation in Australia. It's not the situation under our Constitution. There's only one law in Australia. It's the law that's made by the Parliament of Australia and enforced by our courts. There's no second law. There's only one law that applies in Australia and Australia expects its citizens to observe it. 

TONY JONES: But you're not moving to the next stage, as they have in Britain, of actively seeking out clerics who teach what they regard as dangerous philosophy to young Muslims and forcing them to leave the country? 

PETER COSTELLO: The only thing I would say - and let me say it again - is we can't be ambivalent about this point. Australia has one law, Australia has a secular state and anybody who teaches to the contrary doesn't know Australia and anybody who can't accept that, can't accept something that is fundamental to the nature of our society. 

TONY JONES: All right. But the situation now, as far as you're concerned, if they are to leave, it should be completely voluntary. 

PETER COSTELLO: Well, I'm just saying if they object to a secular state with parliamentary law, there might be other countries where the system of law is more acceptable to them. 

TONY JONES: Alright. Could that situation change? I mean, the voluntary nature of it at least, could you compel people to leave, including radical preachers, if there were a terrorist attack in Australia, as there was in London not so long ago? 

PETER COSTELLO: Well, where a person has dual citizenship, Tony, it might be possible to ask them to exercise that other citizenship where they could just as easily exercise a citizenship of another country. That might be a live possibility. 

TONY JONES: You mean to force them to leave? 

PETER COSTELLO: Well, you could ask them to exercise another citizenship. 

TONY JONES: But you would only do that if there were a terrorist attack in the aftermath of it. You wouldn't do it, for example, if there were a thwarted terrorist attack as ASIO has told us there has been in this country? 

PETER COSTELLO: Well, I am not going into individual circumstances. I just make the point that where people have dual citizenship and they're not comfortable with the way Australia is structured, it may be possible to ask them to exercise their other citizenship. 

TONY JONES: Forcibly? 

PETER COSTELLO: Well, as I said, it may be possible to ask them to exercise their other citizenship. 
*

I couldn't find if Mr. Costello was still the Treasury Dept.  Imagine that kind of straight talk here in Canada.  Half the GTA would have to be hospitalized from the "fits".


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Feb 2006)

Maybe it’s an age thing, I pretty much qualify as a grumpy WASP_ish_ senior citizen with all that implies, but Peter Costello’s comment that  my edits _“…this is a country, which is founded on a democracy. According to our Constitution, we have a secular state. Our laws are made by … Parliament. If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then [this country] is not for you. This is not the kind of country where you would feel comfortable if you were opposed to democracy, parliamentary law, independent courts and so I would say to people who don't feel comfortable with those values there might be other countries where they'd feel more comfortable with their own values or beliefs.”_  (That being said I deplore his sentence structure or, rather, lack of same.)

I need to state a few biases here.  I have lived and worked in many places on several continents; I *believe* that race and creed are useless in predicting brains or behaviour – black Africans and Arabs produce precisely the same proportion of geniuses, fools, saints and charlatans as do Europeans and Asians.  *Culture* (which is at the root of what Sam Huntington described as a _Clash of Civilizations_) is another matter; different cultures do, in my opinion, produce people with distinct, measurable differences in _*large scale* civility_* which might be described as how we view our society.  My personal experience indicates, to me, that democracy, for example, is easily transferred to any society but the foundations which make a modern, secular liberal (or conservative) democracy work – respect for the rule of law, respect for the rights of individuals and groups, ingrained beliefs in equality at law and the merit principle – are far more difficult to transfer; they may not be as _natural_ as we think.  It may have taken our 16th, 17th and 18th century reformations and enlightenments in European (and their Asian equivalents) to make these attributes (is that the right word?) _normal_ and _natural_.

I believe those _civic attributes_ are acquired; they do not spring up, _naturally_ from _small scale_ (family/village) civility.  I think the processes of acquiring these civic attributes make each _culture_, indeed each country and even each province distinct.  Thus, I believe that while Québec, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Texas all share a large base of common European civic attributes each has built is own _distinct civil society_ – none is _better_ than the other but each is more comfortable for those who grew up in it.  It is easy, however for a Texan to move to the Netherlands and for a Québecer to move to New Zealand – the _large scale_ civic “virtues’ are, essentially, the same.  Conversely, it is hard for a Somali or a Saudi to integrate into Oslo or Orillia, especially, as is increasingly the case, the citizens of, say, Atlanta, Brisbane or Copenhagen are unwilling to adapt their _large scale_ (traditional, even ingrained) civic attributes to accommodate the _special needs_ of the Somali or Saudi immigrant.

We can (and many Canadians pride themselves on their ability to) _tolerate_ differences but, as I think I have mentioned before, _tolerance_ is something of a back-handed ‘virtue’.  We _tolerate_ that which, implicitly, is less desirable – if something is equal to our better than what we have we would do more than just _tolerate_ it, we would accept or even embrace it.

We should be able to accord each person the degrees of _privacy_ necessary to allow them to live according to their beliefs – so long as their beliefs do not intrude (markedly) into the _privacy_ of others.  That extends to allowing religions to preach and proselytize when, as I believe is the case for both Christianity and Islam, that (spreading the _gospel_ and converting other before it is too late) is central to one’s faith.  It does not extend to requiring others to adapt their social and political institutions in order to do more than _tolerate_ and respect social privacy.

Tolerance and respect for social privacy must be sufficient unless and until the whole of society is ready to change itself.

Those who do not share our _civility_ have a right, perhaps even a duty to tell us why we might be wrong and how and why we should change our ways.  Some of us might even listen.  Those who cannot accept the society into which they have migrated and which is unwilling to change to suit them must either accept their fate or move on.

I think Costello is right when he says:  my edits _”I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people [here], one the [national] law and another the Islamic law, that that is false. It's not the situation in [here]. It's not the situation under our Constitution. There's only one law [here]. It's the law that's made by [our] Parliament … and enforced by our courts. There's no second law. There's only one law that applies in [here] and [this country] expects its citizens to observe it.”_

----------
* I am of the view that we all, regardless of race, creed, etc, share very, very similar *small scale* civility values: those related to family, friends, maybe even clan or village.  It is my belief that the sort of larger scale civility which produced classical Greece and Rome, classical and modern China and the European Renaissance and so on did not grow, naturally, out of the family and village.  I believe that European, South Asian and east Asian _cultures_ had distinct events and actors which (who) sowed the seeds of our large scale civility.  The seeds were not sown equally, in time, space or density, and each sub-culture made different use of the product.


----------



## GO!!! (2 Feb 2006)

Not knowing much about aussie politics, perhaps this Costello fellow is making a run at the leadership of a conservative or right wing party?


----------



## 3rd Herd (2 Feb 2006)

I quite enjoyed it. It is a simple straight forward statement. Obey the laws or leave. Given some of the problems Australia has been having with their Muslim neighbour to the north it could be read as a political warning not to try and mess with our domestic affairs. His comments about pan anti Americanism seem logical enough given we are often lumped in with our neighbours to the south. I seem to recall and if Westy is around they have been having some immigration issues for a number of years. In all a good reminder of the separation between church and state. To bad our politicians some times forget that.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Feb 2006)

The current furor over the Danish cartoons falls, loosely, into this category.

In my opinion the original publication, in the Danish paper falls into the category of _*benign ignorance*_ – we, most of, being human, are regularly ‘guilty’ of making _benign errors_, especially when dealing with cultures with which we are less than fully familiar.

I then note three reactions:

•	Some Europeans, notably _Le Monde_ (France) and _Die Welt_ (Germany) take the view that their national laws which mandate secularism (witness the French ban on headscarves, etc) somehow require that they republish the offensive (we know that, now, don’t we?) cartoons, presumably, to prove the sanctity of the civil law;

•	Other Europeans, notably the ever _provocative_ British tabloids, decline to publish because, they say, they see no reason to give gratuitous offence to their (Muslim) readers – good manners, according to them;

•	Still others – mostly North Americans, I think - decline to publish because ‘hate laws’ prevent them.  These declare, I guess, that they would be _principled_ and rude if allowed.

I repeat that I share Mr. Costello’s views re: the (absolutely essential) supremacy of the national laws over sectarian rites and rituals; but I also repeat that I believe we are all entitled to (and have) a *right to privacy* which allows us (within some well understood, common law, limits) to preach and practice our own beliefs and which ought to extend to _suggesting_ (but not *requiring*) that we be allowed to be Anglicans, Buddhists or Catholics down to Zoroastrians without suffering interference from or being gratuitously insulted by our compatriots.

On balance: the original Danish publisher made a _benign error_ which Muslims, of “good faith” may deplore but which should be _tolerated_ if not forgiven; the French and German newspapers have a right to publish but they are morally wrong to do so – good manners tells us that the UK tabloids are right.  Hate laws may prevent the Canadian papers from behaving badly but they are too high a price to pay for social peace.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Feb 2006)

+2 for Edward, one for each of his previous posts!

Duey


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Feb 2006)

In general principle I agree with Edward but.....

Herewith a response that I posted on a blogsite pertaining to this issue.



> I was of two minds on this controversy until I saw the BBC interview James Zogby of the Arab American Institute last night.
> 
> I don't think that the cartoons should have been created in the first place. I find the concept as objectionable as showing disrepect to Christians in Nebraska, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Thailand, Animists in Africa or Shintoists in Japan.
> 
> ...



OK - so perhaps I am as guilty as the other guy of over-reacting to a slight but acting, or refusing to act out of fear of the consequences is just plain wrong.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Feb 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> I repeat that I share Mr. Costello’s views re: the (absolutely essential) supremacy of the national laws over sectarian rites and rituals; but I also repeat that I believe we are all entitled to (and have) a *right to privacy* which allows us (within some well understood, common law, limits) to preach and practice our own beliefs and which ought to extend to _suggesting_ (but not *requiring*) that we be allowed to be Anglicans, Buddhists or Catholics down to Zoroastrians without suffering interference from or being gratuitously insulted by our compatriots.



I would agree to this in principle, but the problem is in the "within some well understood, common law, limits".  These special interest groups are constantly pushing for more legally protected rights that may end up affecting us all.  Maybe you live next door to a mosque.  No big deal, right?  Then one day they decide that it is their *right * to broadcast their calls to prayer, five times a day, at 100+ decibels.  Maybe your religious tolerance will be a bit diminished when your new born is woken by a howling guy in a tower every day, five times a day.  "But your Catholics have church bells, I don't like them either".  
Or who wants their municipal taxes to go up when the Islamic School Board in your area is established and has to build all new oriented-east schools?  "But the Catholics have their own school board?". 
[BTW, I am Catholic neutral, just using them for reference]

If Canadians, collectively, don't mind this stuff, then it is just another "these times, they are a-changin'".  But if this bugs anyone, then people have to start getting on their elected Representatives to let them know that their own personal line is being crossed.  Don't expect the politicians of any party to just "do the right thing" if it has any whisper of political incorrectness or there is the ever so slightest chance that it will get spun into a "you are an intolerant racist".


----------



## Dare (3 Feb 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> On balance: the original Danish publisher made a _benign error_ which Muslims, of “good faith” may deplore but which should be _tolerated_ if not forgiven; the French and German newspapers have a right to publish but they are morally wrong to do so – good manners tells us that the UK tabloids are right.  Hate laws may prevent the Canadian papers from behaving badly but they are too high a price to pay for social peace.


I do not think it is morally wrong to publish those cartoons. How often do Muslim controlled newspaper cartoons mock other religions and societies? This whole debacle reeks of hypocracy. Which generates more hate? A video of beheading an innocent human being, or a cartoon? Why should we let people who view the latter more hateful dictate our rules? These newspapers are free to print what they wish. If the horde wants to behead all Danes now, it should be the Danish governments responsibility, not to apologize, but protect freedom of speech. To stand up for what they value rather than bending to the will of foreign customs. No one forced anyone to buy those papers. "Hate crimes".. pfft. Those doodles don't even come close. 

Bottom line: When I see the kinds of action taken against the Danes recently switched to the terrorists, I'll be impressed. Now at least no one can say that large masses of Muslims are unable to mobilize when they *truely* want to. The fact they haven't mobilised to this extent against those who supposedly perverting their religion may be a demonstration of what a real "hate crime" is.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Feb 2006)

Ohhh, kay...I don't know how the cartoon thing keeps coming up.  I was kind of just referring to our values in Canada.  I could kind of care less what the Danes do.  I find it kind of refreshing that some Euro-weenie country is taking heat for a change.  
The last Danish-cartoon threat got locked and warned off.  I am officially indicating that I am not trying to resurrect it.


----------



## Dare (4 Feb 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Ohhh, kay...I don't know how the cartoon thing keeps coming up.  I was kind of just referring to our values in Canada.  I could kind of care less what the Danes do.  I find it kind of refreshing that some Euro-weenie country is taking heat for a change.
> The last Danish-cartoon threat got locked and warned off.  I am officially indicating that I am not trying to resurrect it.


I don't post enough to notice that there was a previously locked thread. Not trying to resurrect anything either.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Feb 2006)

Dare said:
			
		

> I do not think it is morally wrong to publish those cartoons. How often do Muslim controlled newspaper cartoons mock other religions and societies? …



It seems to me, Dare, that you are suggesting that we should adopt the moral standards of the Muslim _street_.  I disagree.  We know, because our cultural values – developed over 2,500 years – tell us, that giving gratuitous offence to others is *morally** wrong; it may well be that other cultures do not share our moral values; that is no reason for us to change.  I agree that Muslim newspapers routinely run disgraceful anti-Semitic cartoons and propagate hateful anti-Semitic propaganda.  They are wrong, morally wrong to do so and we – people with enlightened values – should call them to account for their immoral actions; we should not emulate them.

This goes back to what I see as Mr. Costello’s central point: _” This is not the kind of country where you would feel comfortable if you were opposed to democracy, parliamentary law, independent courts and so I would say to people who don't feel comfortable with those values there might be other countries where they'd feel more comfortable with their own values or beliefs.”_  He was talking about Australia but I repeat the same thing for Canada.

We may _tolerate_ the attitudes of other cultures but that doesn’t mean that we agree with them and it certainly doesn’t mean that we would allow those attitudes to pervade our society.

I think you are right, however, when you say:


			
				Dare said:
			
		

> … Why should we let people who view the latter more hateful dictate our rules? These newspapers are free to print what they wish. If the horde wants to behead all Danes now, it should be the Danish governments responsibility, not to apologize, but protect freedom of speech. To stand up for what they value rather than bending to the will of foreign customs. No one forced anyone to buy those papers. "Hate crimes".. pfft. Those doodles don't even come close …



Maybe, with the exception of my contention that, in an enlightened society, morals ≈ good manners, we are in violent agreement.
----------
Moral = concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behaviour and character based on those principles


----------



## Shec (4 Feb 2006)

And that's +3 for Edward Campbell.   Much wisdom complemented by an injection of common sense in his  obviously well thought out comments.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Feb 2006)

Mr Campbell, 
Excellent series of posts.  As always, you have crystalized this debate in my mind.

Have you ever considered running for national public office?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Feb 2006)

I'd vote for you Edward,....and unlike high-priced spin doctors I can be had for wings and beer at the Black Bear....


----------



## Jungle (4 Feb 2006)

Add a plate of nachos in there... you can count me in !!!


----------



## 48Highlander (4 Feb 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> It seems to me, Dare, that you are suggesting that we should adopt the moral standards of the Muslim _street_.  I disagree.  We know, because our cultural values – developed over 2,500 years – tell us, that giving gratuitous offence to others is *morally** wrong; it may well be that other cultures do not share our moral values; that is no reason for us to change.  I agree that Muslim newspapers routinely run disgraceful anti-Semitic cartoons and propagate hateful anti-Semitic propaganda.  They are wrong, morally wrong to do so and we – people with enlightened values – should call them to account for their immoral actions; we should not emulate them.
> 
> This goes back to what I see as Mr. Costello’s central point: _” This is not the kind of country where you would feel comfortable if you were opposed to democracy, parliamentary law, independent courts and so I would say to people who don't feel comfortable with those values there might be other countries where they'd feel more comfortable with their own values or beliefs.”_  He was talking about Australia but I repeat the same thing for Canada.
> 
> ...



If you truly beleive that being polite is part of "our" moral code, I respectfuly suggest that you must not have been paying attention to recent events.

One has only to look at the conduct of our politicians during the recent election campaign to realize that insults, lies, and misrepresentation of others is still a large part of our society.  Or, look at Carolyn Parish's reaction to "those American Bastards".  We've just shifted targets.  Instead of attacking other religions or races, we attack people based on political beleifs, and a large segment of our society sees nothing wrong with continualy insulting and belittling our souther neighbours.

Your post was very well written, and very nice and idealistic and warm and fuzzy.  But it doesn't live up to reality.  There's nothing polite about our society, we're just not as extreme as some others.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Feb 2006)

Politeness is certainly a Canadian value, and Canadians are stereotyped by many others as a generally polite people.

48H has a point that politeness is not, however, a "Canadian Value".  Widespread loss of politeness and consideration of others in public discourse represents a shift in values.  As I've written before, however we may seek to evolve our values we must not lose the enabling values which got us to where we are today.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Feb 2006)

Could it be that this "polite Canadian" persona is part of the problem?  I agree that there is really no need to go "eye for an eye" with the extremists on bad taste journalism (thats what the Toronto Star is for) and you will only generate grief with ripping on Muslim religion.  Ours (if we still consider ourselves more or less Christian based) is a religion of forgiveness.  Other religions require killing (remember Salman Rushdie?).  It's like dealing with a violent schizophrenic with turrets syndrome.  If they are shouting and swearing at you, there is really no point in doing the same back.  You know better.  
But the politeness is tying our hands, too.  It is this uber-polite mind set that has been the pointy end of the stick leading political correctness.  For a politician to come out and say "if you don't like how things run in our country, please feel free to make your way to another country" that would seem impolite, despite the fact that I believe that is the way that most of us feel.  Special interest groups rely on this soft handed approach so if someone even whimpers contrary to their views, all they have to do is scream "intolerance" or "racism" or "player hater" or whatever and people are cowed.  
Because who wants to seem impolite?


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Feb 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> If you truly beleive _(sic)_ that being polite is part of "our" moral code, I respectfuly _(sic)_ suggest that you must not have been paying attention
> …
> Your post … doesn't live up to reality.  There's nothing polite about our society, we're just not as extreme as some others.



_Politeness_ or good manners or _ behaviour based on the principles of right or wrong_ is, indeed, a characteristic of our modern, secular, liberal, democratic society.  Some people, including e.g. John Ibbitson in his recently published _The Polite Revolution_ (Toronto, 2005) mistakenly think it is a Canadian attribute; not so – it is, I suggest, a product of the enlightenment and a necessary component of most successful Western urban societies.

The _tolerance_ (which, I repeat, is a rather back-handed virtue, being based on an implicit sense of superiority over those being _tolerated_) which might be the _sine qua non_ of placid multi-cultural societies is, really, nothing more than the good manners which I content is based on a general acknowledgement of a _*right* to personal privacy_, which I suggest is part of our common law heritage.

The fact that some (many?) in our society behave badly now and again, more often than we would wish to be sure, is neither here nor there.  The overarching fact, I think, is that our society has institutionalized ‘good manners’ and, in many cases, adapted ‘good manners’ into everything from traffic laws to (harmful) hate crimes legislation – zipperhead_cop is correct when he says that, _”It is this uber-polite mind set that has been the pointy end of the stick leading political correctness.”_ It is possible to be too polite, to allow ‘good manners’ to get in the way of common sense.  Going back to the original point, I think Mr. Costello was refreshingly clear, direct and correct and I do not think he was rude or that breached some imaginary rules of _multi-cult_ etiquette.  The key point is that while we need not be, should not be _politically correct_ we should respect the _privacy_ of others and, I would argue, that extends to not offering intentional gratuitous insults to others which is why I qualified the original Danish acts as being _benign errors_ while I regard the actions of _Le Monde_ and _Die Welt_ as being unnecessarily and gratuitously insulting and, therefore, ill mannered and, ultimately, reduced to the lowest common cultural level.

I repeat: while, in my personal view, all people are equal in all things, the cultures which shape their attitudes and actions are unequal.  I posit that _our_ enlightened, secular, liberal, democratic _culture_ is ‘superior’ to most others in that it is best adapted to and most likely to prosper in the 21st century global village.  One of the attributes of our culture, one of the reasons we are ‘better’ is that we have institutionalized ‘good manners’ – we are polite because our _moral code_ acknowledges that _ behaviour based on the principles of right or wrong_ is essential to the social peace and order which allows us to work together for out common good, etc.

We are polite because it is more efficient and productive (see Adam Smith, et al) to be polite, that is the *reality* of the West for the past 500 years – for about as long has ‘we’ have dominated the world.


----------



## 48Highlander (4 Feb 2006)

Personaly I think you're confusing politeness with fear and social pressure.  From what I can see, people are no less likely to insult certain grups than they were a century ago, the only difference is that now they insult groups that don't have many defenders.

Hell, scratch my last, it's not any different.  5 decades back it was alright to insult blacks because everyone could get away with it.  There was no social outcry against it, and the blacks generaly didn't fight back.  I'm sure the more "enlightened" individuals had a problem with it, but they were in the minority, so it didn't matter.  Today, the same situation exists but with a new target group.  Americans and Jews are both insulted and belittled on a daily basis, largely because there's no public outcry against it, and because they don't fight back.  Sure the more "enlightened" individuals have a problem with both, but they're still in the minority, so it doesn't matter.

Try an experiment, go to York University and yell "DEATH TO ALL AMERICANS" or "DEATH TO ALL JEWS".  Then come back the next day and yell "DEATH TO ALL BLACKS" or "DEATH TO ALL MUSLIMS".  If you're right about how enlightened and polite our society is, then any one of those statements should generate the same response.  However, I gaurantee you that you'll get a much different response using the latter two than the former.



I do understand what you're saying when you speak about our society being superior because we're more liberal and understanding.  I agree, those values which our society is based on ARE what seperates us from more destructive (and self-destructive) cultures.  However, there's a big difference between having a tolerant culture, and having tolerant citizens.  And it's hypocritical to allow insults against one group while ignoring insults against another.  Yes, the cartoons were impoilte and misguided.  But no more so than cartoons in our own "tolerant" news publications which paint Americans as oil-hungry violent war-mongers.  And BOTH are an allowed form of self-expression.  If we attempt to control either, we're infringing on peoples rights to express their own beleifs.  Where do you draw the line?  If my girlfriend is offensive to a muslim because she doesn't wear a burka, should my moral, tolerant, and polite values dictate that I ask her to put one on?


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Feb 2006)

Edward I think this might be a reference of interest:

"Refined and Refinement: these were important words for the Scottish Enlightenment.  They went together with another term that Hutcheson (Francis, 1694-1746) picked up in Dublin, when he turned to the writings of Molesworth's patron, Lord Shaftesbury.  That word was _politeness_.  Shaftesbury took a term associated with the world of jewelers and stonemasons (as in polished stones and marble) and elevated it to the highest of human virtues.  Being polished or polite was more than just good manners, as we might say.  Politeness for Shaftesbury encapsulated all the strengths of a sophisticated culture:  it keen sense of understanding, its flourishing art and literature, it *self-confidence* (emphasis added), its regard for truth and the importance of intellectual criticism, and, most important, an appreciation of the humane side of our character.....Kindness, compassion, self-restraint, and a sense of humour were, for Shaftesbury,  the final fruits of a "polished" culture........Shaftesbury also explained where the highest and most sophisticated polite cultures came from. The answer was simple: liberty. "All politeness is owing to Liberty," he wrote.  "We polish one another, and rub off our Corners and rough Sides by a sort of amicable Collision." ... How the Scots invented the Modern World, Arthur Herman, 2001.

The concept of politeness was in direct and conscious contradiction to Hobbes vision of life as nasty, brutish and short.  It did not imply softness however.  The same school of thought embraced the ideas of Adam Ferguson, chaplain of the Black Watch, who also saw the need to maintain a degree of savagery in a civilized society.  His ideas can be said to have been invoked to justify the Second Amendment in the US constitution, the right to bear arms and more importantly the need for the citizenry of any society to be involved in its own defence - the need to balance politeness with a willingness to be savage when the occasion warrants.

As with most other aspects of the Enlightenment the watch word was moderation - not in the sense of standing in the middle but actively choosing, as situations demanded, when to be savage and when to be polite.

Put it another way.  It costs nothing to be polite.  It allows you to better pick your battles.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Feb 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Personaly I think you're confusing politeness with fear and social pressure.  From what I can see, people are no less likely to insult certain grups than they were a century ago, the only difference is that now they insult groups that don't have many defenders.
> 
> ...



I’m not about to argue that there is not a double standard in our society.  I read, this morning I think – but I’m not going to search the trash (or the Internet) for the article, a bit about a cartoon which won an award in Britain.  It showed Ariel Sharon eating a (Palestinian) baby.  (It was a grossly distorted caricature and reference to the old blood libel, part of its effectiveness was,  I presume that it was, clearly, a caricature of Sharon and of our own ingrained anti-Semitism.)  In any event someone asked the representative of the group which gave the cartoon an award: why that one? Why not an anti-Arab terrorist cartoon?  The answer was something like: “Jews don’t issue _fatwas.”_

My problem with your position, if I understand it, and part of Dare’s, too, is that it appears to me that you suggest that we ought to race to the bottom, that we should, just because we can, do what we (rightfully) deplore when others do it.  I don’t accept that position – we are ‘better’ than that.



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> ...  If we attempt to control either, we're infringing on peoples rights to express their own beleifs.  Where do you draw the line?  If my girlfriend is offensive to a muslim because she doesn't wear a burka, should my moral, tolerant, and polite values dictate that I ask her to put one on?



This is one of the issues which, I think led to the original Danish ‘test’ of the limits of free speech.  (I think that’s what the Danish editors had in mind according to what I have read/heard.)  A Danish lawyer argued, in a rape trial I think, that the Muslim defendants should be acquitted or punishment should be mitigated because they were _inflamed_ by the immodest actions and attire of young Danish women.  They, the rapists, were _”offended”_ by the social mores of the country to which they had, voluntarily, migrated.  There was, I think, considerable outrage amongst ethnic Danes, as there should have been – I suspect the ever polite, cultured, tolerant Danes even took to the streets and waved placards saying ‘Denmark for Danes’ and so on.

I have consistently supported Costello when he says: adapt or move on.  (Which is about the same as saying, _”America: love it or leave it!”_)  What I suggest, however, is that those who do adapt are entitled to their privacy which I take to include a right to preach and practice their religion and live their lives without gratuitous insults from others, including the _mainstream_ or majority.  The same applies to homosexuals and members of the flat-earth society.  Good manners, alone, demand no less.

----------
By the way, the old elementary school rule is: _*'I' before 'e' except after 'c' or when sounded as ‘ay’ as in neighbour and weigh.*_


----------



## 48Highlander (4 Feb 2006)

I just stumbled across an excellent article that does a good job of explaining what I was trying to say.  Unfortunately I can't edit my own posts at the moment, otherwise I would have just added it to my last one   Anyway, here it is:



			
				http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008045.php said:
			
		

> "I know the evil of my ancestors because I am those people. The balance is delicate in the extreme. I know that few of you who read my words have ever thought about your ancestors this way. It has not occurred to you that your ancestors were survivors and that survival itself sometimes involved savage decisions, a kind of wanton brutality which civilized humankind works very hard to suppress. What price will you pay for that suppression? Will you accept you own extinction?"
> -- The Stolen Journals of Leto II (F.H., God Emperor of Dune)
> 
> .....
> ...



Read more here


The key point there being that human nature _does not change_.  Many members of our own society are quite capable of being irrational, bigoted, and violent.  The only thing holding them in check is a sense of tradition, and "societal values".  However, when you have a target group which isn't protected under those values, there's nothing to restrain their behaviour.  You see that at any anti-war protest you go to.  We see ourselves as accepting and understanding, and under our current rules of conduct that means we don't insult minority groups.  But human nature being what it is, instead of truly becoming tolerant and understanding large segments of our society instead turn on other groups for which there are no taboos against attacking.

So you're right, the values of our society DO set us apart from "them", however, the values of our society do not accurately reflect who we really are; rather, they reflect what we picture ourselves to be, and what some of us strive to become.  Whereas "they" make much less of an attempt to hide their (very human) nature.

How does this relate to the cartoons?  Well, it's more of an argument against your views that we should encourage politeness in all things.  If we accept that a large segment of our society does not _truly believe_ in the liberal values which our society is based on, but rather only give in to them because of social pressure, then it becomes obvious that we're fighting a losing battle when we condemn those who speak out aggressively against more regressive societies.  When you have millions of Muslims protesting against these cartoons, AND you've got half of our own society arguing that such speech should be forbidden, you are helping reinforce the perception that it's wrong to offend Muslims.  This perception automatically creates social pressure, and people quickly jump on-board.  Meanwhile, when Muslims attack our society and our values in much the same way, it makes very little difference that you're also going to be against their "hate speech" against us.  Your voice simply gets lost in all the noise.  If you view it as a propaganda war, you're adding your support to their defence, while being overpowered by their attack.  Like I said, it's a losing battle.

That's one of the reasons I believe in near absolute freedom of speech.  It's not just that I believe in true liberty, although that's certainly a major part of it.  As it relates to the current clash of civilizations though, I would rather give people the liberty to verbally attack ANY group they chose, than forbid them from attacking only those societies which are in direct competition with our own.

An interesting parallel can be drawn between the current conflict and the pre-WW2 attitudes of the Germans and the "allied countries" respectively.  Germany allowed and encouraged extreme propaganda meant to glorify the German people while dehumanizing Jews and "others".  Meanwhile, the rest of the world was split between condemning German attitudes, and making apologies for them.  The "polite" individuals amongst us went to great pains to ensure the rest that the Germans really wanted peace.  The side of the war that we eventually ended up fighting in was massively fragmented before it began, and that certainly aided the Germans in making massive advances before facing any real opposition.  Eventually, before we achieved victory, we ended up indulging in the same sorts of propaganda campaigns and the same de-humanization of our enemies, because it became necessary in order to achieve victory.  How much different would things have been if we hadn't been so fragmented to begin with; if we hadn't been so eager to accept or ignore their attitudes and actions, while simultaneously pooh-pooing those who suggested that the Germans may be a threat?


P.S.  You can stop correcting my spelling mistakes, I took the time to run this post through a spell-checker   And yes, I am quite aware that I nearly always misspell the word "believe", thanks.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Feb 2006)

It is, perhaps, a question of ‘base.’  My ideas are based on Locke, Hume, Smith and Mill; I think Hobbes got it wrong.  You appear to differ.

With respect to _” near absolute freedom of speech”_: how _near_?  Is shouting fire in a crowded theatre still over the line?  Isn’t hurling gratuitous insults at anyone in the same category, if you understand that it might inflame passions?

I also wonder if we understand ‘true liberty’ in anything like the same way.  I believe that liberty is defined in terms of the _sovereign_ individual against all collectives: the state and its minions, churches and their minions and, indeed, the _majority_ when it rules.  I also believe that _true liberty_ is accompanied by responsibilities to secure and protect that same liberty for others, even for those who abuse it.

Absolute liberty to do anything is, it seems to me, just more Rousseauistic drivel: an excuse to not try harder, to simply drift down to the lowest tolerable societal level.  I mistrust the concept.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Feb 2006)

> Absolute liberty to do anything is, it seems to me, just more Rousseauistic drivel: an excuse to not try harder, to simply drift down to the lowest tolerable societal level.  I mistrust the concept.



I once heard absolute liberty in this sense defined as licence, as in licentious behaviour.  Liberty was the freedom of the individual to act responsibly or accept the consequences when they failed to act within the rules of society.


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Feb 2006)

Just to help clarify the source of the above quote presented by 48Highlander:

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008045.php



> February 04, 2006
> We Have Met the Enemy, and He Is Us
> by Guest Author at February 4, 2006 10:44 AM
> 
> ...



http://conjecturesandrefutations.net/weblog/?page_id=8



> About the Author
> 
> The author, Matt McIntosh, is an Ontarian college student with a professional interest in digital systems and networking. Those are his work, while his play includes an interest philosophy, economics, evolution, and history, among other things. He also pays far more attention to politics than is probably rational. His general philsosophical and political outlook is a frothy brew of Karl Popper, Friedrich Hayek, Daniel Dennett, Thomas Barnett, Steven Pinker, David D. Friedman, Ronald Coase, Thomas Schelling, and James M. Buchanan. He has also grown to enjoy mathematics more since leaving high school, and now tries to educate himself in a patchwork fashion.



http://conjecturesandrefutations.net/pictures/me.jpg


----------



## 48Highlander (5 Feb 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> It is, perhaps, a question of ‘base.’  My ideas are based on Locke, Hume, Smith and Mill; I think Hobbes got it wrong.  You appear to differ.



My ideas don't depend on philosophers.  Blame it on too much exposure to people who quote Chomsky.



			
				Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> With respect to _” near absolute freedom of speech”_: how _near_?  Is shouting fire in a crowded theatre still over the line?  Isn’t hurling gratuitous insults at anyone in the same category, if you understand that it might inflame passions?



Hardly.  In one, the victims have no option but to take the threat seriously.  Yelling fire in a crowded theater is no better than pointing a gun at someones head and saying "I am going to shoot you".  It's a direct threat.  An insult on the other hand depends on the desire of the "victim" to take offence.  It has no effect and no meaning unless the person it is directed at choses to respond.

True, many people can't control anger very well.  More often though, reacting with physical violence when insulted isn't a reaction to the words themselves, but to the perceived slight and the loss of status if one ignores it.  For me personaly, an insult has very little meaning.  I have certainly never struck anyone just because they chose to insult me.  Nor could I picture myself ever reacting in such a way.  What's the point?  Personal insults generaly only display the ignorance of the person offering them.

What do YOU beleive?  That yelling "fire" in a theater, and saying "muslims are suicide bombers" equals to the same thing?  Why, because someone may get offended and become violent?  Come on.  Where does that kind of logic stop?  If you say that you support the war in Iraq, and I get offended by it, will you apologize for that statement?  If I get offended by your use of the word "the", will you remove that word from your vocabulary?



			
				Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> I also wonder if we understand ‘true liberty’ in anything like the same way.



Obviously not.  True liberty is allowing people to do whatever they wish as long as they do not harm others.  "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" as it were.  What do I care if you want to go pump yourself full of drugs, wear a KKK hood, and sodomize goats in the town square.  I beleive a lot of the extreme behaviours people exibit are a result of the fact that those things are forbidden.  So keep it simple - the only things that should be illegal or forbidden are those which harm others, or are clearly intended to harm others, and the punishment for those few crimes should be extreme.  Truth be told I'd prefer a system of vigilantism to enforce the law, but that would depend on people being a lot more mature and responsible than most are.

And no, when I say "harm others" I don't meant "emotionaly harm" or "psychicly cripple", or whatever the newest touchy-feely phrase is.  Words are just words.  They can always be fought with words.

And since my idea of true liberty obviously isn't anywhere near to becoming reality, I'll settle for as close as we can get.  And then I'll push for some more


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Feb 2006)

48Highlander seems intent on personalizing ( or, perhaps, _individualizing_) what should be, *I think*, a discussion of what I called, a couple of days back, _large scale civility_,

It seems to me that any kind of liberty, even _*true*_ liberty, must include a dose of responsibility for society.  I think this is easy to manage in _small scale_ civil societies: families, clans, even villages.  My personal observations, after living/visiting and working in a few different parts of Africa, the Middle East and West Asia is that _small scale_ civility is pretty much the same the world over, but I conclude that _large scale_ civility is much different in those regions than it is in North America, Australia/New Zealand, Western Europe and East Asia.  (I do not think this has much to do with religion, although it might be true that Islam _enhances_ some attributes in e.g Arabic culture which have made successful large scale civility difficult.)

The relative weight of _liberty_ and _responsibility_ seem, to me, to define us as liberal, conservative on the successful side of the large scale civility equation or _illiberal_ or, perhaps, _primitive_* on the failed side.  I think that liberal Western societies have succeeded in developing a large scale civility which works in the 21st century; ditto conservative East Asian societies.  I think most (many? just some?) Afro-Asian (including Middle Eastern) societies (cultures) failed,** largely because the changes which have been _imposed_ by 500 years of _globalization_ were, largely, imposed by Europeans.  I believe that cultures can succeed if they are either _liberal_ or _conservative_, although the paths may differ – see _The Economist_, 21-27 Jan edition, *Coming of age*, page 10).  I think it is demonstrably impossible for illiberal (most (all?) of Africa) or primitive (Africa/Middle East and West Asia) societies to do the same.  The processes of becoming liberal (or adapting cultural conservatism to a _globalized_ system created (or taken over) by the _liberals_) has not been easy – in fact it was long and bloody - arguably the European enlightenment only came about because of the experiences of the 16th and early 17th centuries: reformation, civil wars, religious wars, _regicide_ and so on.

Kirkhill makes two important points:

•	For the original, Scottish enlightenment, the nature of society at large was to be based on the positive cultural values of the small scale civility – on the “liberty” which is _polished_ by an ongoing series of the ‘amicable collisions’ which characterize life in the family or clan or village; and

•	Contrary to Jerry Rubin’s adolescent view, liberty ≠ licence.  _”If it feels good, do it!”_ is precisely what is happening on the streets of Beirut this morning.  This is unrestrained _liberty_ taken to it logical, unconstrained conclusion; this is what Hobbes had in mind; this is why it was, and remains, necessary to affirm that Hobbes was wrong and that in *reality* we need to _polish_ our liberty by rubbing (not knocking) off the rough edges.

Individuals, _sovereign_ individuals will each react differently to each stimulus and, on balance, it doesn’t matter, to society at large, how a few individuals respond.  What matters is how _*most*_ of those individuals act, as a group, as a _culture_, regarding all the things which shape our society, day-by-day and decade-by-decade.  That is the nature of _large scale civility_.  We, in liberal societies, tend towards protecting the individual from the pressures imposed by law and custom; those in conservative societies want to protect the collective cultural values (expressed in law an custom) from the _radical_ pressures of individuals.  In successful liberal and conservative societies neither tendency is absolute or even extreme.  In failed (mostly primitive or illiberal) cultures we see only the extremes: imposed _order_ by e.g. Big Men and the sort of licence being _tolerated_ in Beirut today.

The point, to go all the way back to the start of this thread, is that we need to affirm the kind of country we want, on in which, as Mr. Costello said, _”… you would *[not]* feel comfortable if you were opposed to democracy, parliamentary law, independent courts …”_  But we need to add a positive to Costello’s negatives: once anyone accepts the foundations of our society and the country which reflects it then they are entitled to all the rights and freedoms which we values, including access to all the virtues of our civility which, I suggest, ought to extend to more than mere _tolerance_ of differences.  I believe that the essence of our secular, liberal democratic society (culture) ought to be that it is respectful and protective of individuals and groups and I believe that is also the essence of good manners.

In my opinion, the sort of _*true* liberty_ which 48Highlander *appears* to advocate is nihilistic and, at the end, meaningless and, consequently, destructive of civil society.

We - especially the Anglo-American ‘we’ – have developed an imperfect (to be sure) but workable secular, liberal democratic and _polished_ society/culture.  It is, now, under attack by _movement*s*_ which I have described, elsewhere on army.ca, as: _Arabic_, *extremist*, _fundamentalist_ and *Islamic*.  It seems to me that we must understand what we are defending – we need to know that our ‘large scale civility’ is worth the price which we ask Canadian soldiers to pay.  I do not think that a social construct based on _” What do I care if you want to go pump yourself full of drugs, wear a KKK hood, and sodomize goats in the town square.”{?}_ qualifies. 

----------
* Many, me included, refer to the medieval mindset of some, especially Middle Eastern cultures (societies)† - the implication is that they are primitive or have, at least, failed to adapt to the ongoing _globalization_ which has characterized the past 500 years.

† I know I am using these two terms interchangeably but neither, in conventional usage, expresses the whole idea I have which is that 

** Someone posited, within the last few days, that we are watching Arab-Islamic rage at the dawning realization that they (their cultures (societies)) have failed and that, most likely, they cannot recover the lost ground of the past few centuries.  It is, to me, an intriguing proposition.


----------



## 48Highlander (5 Feb 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> In my opinion, the sort of _*true* liberty_ which 48Highlander *appears* to advocate is nihilistic and, at the end, meaningless and, consequently, destructive of civil society.



That right there is the crux of your argument, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion.  However, I've heard that argument applied many times.  It's been used to argue against everything from allowing blacks in "our" schools, to legalizing gay marriage.  Any time some new and revolutionary freedom is about to be implemented, there's been individuals who argue that it's "destructive to society".

Who knows, maybe you're all right.  But the sky hasn't fallen on our heads yet, and as far as I'm concerned, the closest we get to absolute freedom the better and more civilized our society becomes.  Your type of polished aristocratical society isn't my idea of what Canada is or should be.


----------



## Michael OLeary (5 Feb 2006)

It appears we have just come full circle:



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> Your type of polished aristocratical society isn't my idea of what Canada is or should be.





			
				Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Those who do not share our _civility_ have a right, perhaps even a duty to tell us why we might be wrong and how and why we should change our ways.  Some of us might even listen.  Those who cannot accept the society into which they have migrated and which is unwilling to change to suit them must either accept their fate or move on.



48highlander, I would suggest it's time to build your case on more than just your personal opinion, or accept that you do not have a case deserving consideration as a basis for restructuring our society.


----------



## 48Highlander (5 Feb 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> It appears we have just come full circle:
> 
> 48highlander, I would suggest it's time to build your case on more than just your personal opinion, or accept that you do not have a case deserving consideration as a basis for restructuring our society.



What?  Restructuring?

I stating, quite clearly I thought, that I disagree with Edwards idea of what our society IS.  We don't live in a Gentlemens Society, where the majority are well behaved, polite, polished aristocrats.  So the sentence you quote from me does not advocate changing our society.

As to the parts of my argument where I WAS advocating changing our society?  What else would you like me to build my case on?  It all boils down to opinion eventually.  The US Declaration of Independance, the Constitution....they were just the amalgamadet opinions of a group of people.  They advocated the type of freedom that I do.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Feb 2006)

> What?  Restructuring?
> 
> I stating, quite clearly I thought, that I disagree with Edwards idea of what our society IS.  We don't live in a Gentlemens Society, where the majority are well behaved, polite, polished aristocrats.  So the sentence you quote from me does not advocate changing our society.



48Highlander:  Whatever you think the state of our society IS currently it is in no way comparable to what it WAS prior to the Enlightenment that Edward refers to.  That world was close to your perfect Anarchy (my words in your mouth because that is what it appears to me you are advocating) and in many ways comparable to what we see today in Afghanistan, the Caucasus or the Congo.  Edit:  However far we have to go to achieve or regain (depending on perspective) a "Gentlemen's Society" it is a lot less far than we have already come.

Our polished society resulted from people that were just plain, bone tired of planting people in the ground, building new houses, trying to find new cattle and sheep to replace the ones stolen, dealing with strong men making up laws as they went along.  Eventually they came to the conclusion that somethings just weren't worth the bother.  One of those things not worth the effort was trying to prevent your neighbour from going to hell because he or she didn't bend the knee to God or preferred to be surrounded by images of Saints.  You would both find out in due course who was right.   In the meantime both of you just wanted to get on with your lives.

One type of polishing came from the rise of social clubs like the Masons which admitted all religions and all classes.  These clubs were not the domain of the aristocrats.  They were, amongst other things, places where working men and tradespeople could sit down to supper with the local gentry.  The gentry got to know more about other's problems.  The working men picked up manners by osmosis.  Schools, churches, women's institutes, etc all have contributed to the polishing process.   All have striven to teach toleration, moderation and respect.

I am one who believes that where the system has begun to come apart in recent years is that where in the past those were attributes ascribed to the individual, with the individual determining their own actions, the attributes are now ascribed to our society and society determines the actions of the individual.  The difference between the two situations is that in one instance the individual is free, trusted and respected, and sovereign, while in the other the individual is suborned and constrained by society.  It is the difference between leadership by example and leadership by command.

You may think that a society of absolute freedom (something of an oxymoron there) or license or anarchy (another oxymoron) has it attractions but I put to you that in Iraq the LAST thing that the people over there want is an absence of government.  Their primary desire is for security.  This is no different than the desire of any other people.  The difficulty is trying to create the conditions where they can learn to get along amongst themselves and that requires give and take, toleration, moderation and respect.  When most people get tired enough of the mess around them they will take steps to clean in up themselves.  In the meantime, people being people, would prefer that someone else clean up their mess for them.  Under those circumstances they are susceptible to accepting the pitch of the latest fast talking salesman promising to make things all better.  This is what Will Durant meant when he said “When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near” .

People cherish order as much as they cherish freedom.  It is impossible to have either in absolute form.  It is necessary to find the middle.

When it comes to dealing with unpolished societies all we can do is set the example, instruct and assist those that see merit in our example, and not forget how much of a struggle it has been to get here.

I was once asked which bear was truly free: a bear in a cage being tended with three squares a day, a bear in a park that is protected from man but has to forage for themself, or a bear in the wild that can be shot on sight.  There is no absolute liberty.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Feb 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> What do I care if you want to go pump yourself full of drugs, wear a KKK hood, and sodomize goats in the town square.



You have to be careful when you divulge the secret initiation rituals of a group.  They are really fussy about that stuff. :dontpanic:

I think the two camps here sum up as:  the right to say what you want, and even being justified in the face of misbehaviour on others parts and conducting ourselves in a credible manner that is fitting of our excellent country.  
Here in Castle North America we really can do whatever we want to.  Sure you can publish all kinds of defaming items if that is what you are in to, and you may be held to an accounting.  In states that are theocratically run, they don't always have things like free speech and uncensored journalism.  We do, and maybe take it for granted.  I agree that it is a double standard, but so what?  That is the price of holding the high ground.  There is already so much anti-western sentiment that is being pushed in the middle east and else where that even if we don't do ANYTHING there will be people pushing others to hate us.  So why give them concrete examples of why they should hate us?  You could publish a thousand items flogging the virtues of Islam and what not, but if people are living in a state of information censure, then they won't see it.  But lob out one dumb thing (like a false article about flushing a Koran down the toilet) and it will be out like lightning and linger like cancer.  The bad guys pulling the strings (the extremists) WANT us to fight back so they have more fodder.  If we ignore them, or just keep being nice (whether we mean it or not) we don't give them any fuel.  
It bugs me too, having to eat sh_t and saying "yum".  I am a big fan of massive retaliation and retribution.  But I have to compare this situation to being philosophically the same as when I deal with a person suffering from mental health issues.  I take a lot of time and patience with them, because they can't really help the way they are, they were born with a problem.  I can get mad, and yell and us sheer physical force on them to get my way, but that only makes it worse for the next guy who has to deal with the nummy the next time.  They aren't going to stop being MHA just by putting time in, and they will definitely be dealing with the police over and over.  If the MHA person always has good contacts with the police, they may still have Neil Diamond in their head telling them to put up a silly putty shield and hit the cop with a Ramen noodle sword, but they may hold off because there is a bit of intellect there that says "these guys are okay".  However, if the last contact they had was to get dropped on their head, cuffed and carted off, the next time something happens they will be on the attack from the get go, because that is what they expect.  
Maybe we should put up some mental "Don't poke or throw things at the Arabs" signs.  Eventually they will probably show up here on a refugee claim, and we should be in a position to welcome them, but not cater to them.


----------



## Michael OLeary (5 Feb 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> What?  Restructuring?
> 
> I stating, quite clearly I thought, that I disagree with Edwards idea of what our society IS.  We don't live in a Gentlemens Society, where the majority are well behaved, polite, polished aristocrats.  So the sentence you quote from me does not advocate changing our society.
> 
> As to the parts of my argument where I WAS advocating changing our society?  What else would you like me to build my case on?  It all boils down to opinion eventually.  The US Declaration of Independance, the Constitution....they were just the amalgamadet opinions of a group of people.  They advocated the type of freedom that I do.



I believe one of the points you are missing is that we do live in a "Gentleman's Society", where societal norms for morality and behaviour tend to tolerance and right to use within stated legal boundaries.  The failure of the few to accept these social responsibilities, who wish their world to resemble Jerry Springer's universe, all the while 'enjoying' the liberties society allows, are insufficient cause to spurn the qualities and advantages of a developed western society which must incorporate some controls on behaviour to maintain acceptable norms.

My point is: that your 'points' do not satisfy the case being argued.

You seem to have no qualms decrying the general approach within Canadian society towards social morality and politeness:



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> If you truly beleive that being polite is part of "our" moral code, I respectfuly suggest that you must not have been paying attention to recent events.
> 
> One has only to look at the conduct of our politicians during the recent election campaign to realize that insults, lies, and misrepresentation of others is still a large part of our society.  Or, look at Carolyn Parish's reaction to "those American Bastards".  We've just shifted targets.  Instead of attacking other religions or races, we attack people based on political beleifs, and a large segment of our society sees nothing wrong with continualy insulting and belittling our souther neighbours.
> 
> Your post was very well written, and very nice and idealistic and warm and fuzzy.  But it doesn't live up to reality.  There's nothing polite about our society, we're just not as extreme as some others.





			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> So you're right, the values of our society DO set us apart from "them", however, the values of our society do not accurately reflect who we really are; rather, they reflect what we picture ourselves to be, and what some of us strive to become.



... and you state your personal views are for something radically different:



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> That's one of the reasons I believe in near absolute freedom of speech.  It's not just that I believe in true liberty, although that's certainly a major part of it.  As it relates to the current clash of civilizations though, I would rather give people the liberty to verbally attack ANY group they chose, than forbid them from attacking only those societies which are in direct competition with our own.



If that does not constitute thinly veiled advocacy for change, then what is it? Hypocrisy, or simply whining?

Your case is built solely on your personal views; easily espoused on the internet when you wish to post words into a vacuum without regard for solid discourse of fundamentals and facts. You spurn Edward's references to philosophers:



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> My ideas don't depend on philosophers.  Blame it on too much exposure to people who quote Chomsky.



Yet you would surf the net until you find a self-aggrandizing student 'philosopher' who, in a single piece of writing expressed a few sentences that agreed with you:



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> I just stumbled across an excellent article that does a good job of explaining what I was trying to say.  Unfortunately I can't edit my own posts at the moment, otherwise I would have just added it to my last one   Anyway, here it is:
> 
> Read more here



Your stated preference, as described by Edward is nihilistic, you would turn over basic principles of western humanity for your own ability to do what you wish:



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> True liberty is allowing people to do whatever they wish as long as they do not harm others.  "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" as it were.  What do I care if you want to go pump yourself full of drugs, wear a KKK hood, and sodomize goats in the town square.  I beleive a lot of the extreme behaviours people exibit are a result of the fact that those things are forbidden.  So keep it simple - the only things that should be illegal or forbidden are those which harm others, or are clearly intended to harm others, and the punishment for those few crimes should be extreme.  Truth be told I'd prefer a system of vigilantism to enforce the law, but that would depend on people being a lot more mature and responsible than most are.
> 
> And no, when I say "harm others" I don't meant "emotionaly harm" or "psychicly cripple", or whatever the newest touchy-feely phrase is.  Words are just words.  They can always be fought with words.
> 
> And since my idea of true liberty obviously isn't anywhere near to becoming reality, I'll settle for as close as we can get.  And then I'll push for some more



Attempting to separate physical harm from anything psychological or emotional based simply underscores the immature development of your argument. I am certain that many rape and abuse vistims would rush to your banner under this opinion.

Nihilism as a personal philosophy is tolerated, but only in a society free enough to allow such expression, whether it does so under the heading of "rights" or "artistic expression" is immaterial. This is because the social matrix protects the nihilist from the more aggressive retaliations they might fully expect from a surrounding populace who would also believe in complete freedom of action.   But as a societal norm, it would be ultimately destructive, because it has no bounds, no expectations of social responsibility, and no means to generate expectations of good social behaviour supporting the very existence of the society itself.

Perhaps the predominant question, since you turn away from intimations that your point is to advocate change to the principles of a social framework you don't seem to agree with, should be: *What exactly is YOUR point?*


----------



## a_majoor (6 Feb 2006)

Moving in a somewhat different direction here.

One of the problems we are having here in Canada, and to a certain extent in "Old Europe" is the seeming inability to actually define what our values are. We are "tolerent" and "Multicultural", seemingly without limit, and even behaviour which would have seemed outrageous only a few years ago is now considered (officially at least) "the norm". When Canada's defining value is "Health care", how many people will rally to the trumpet?

The consequences range beyond the questions of how certain followers of Islam behave; the "ganstas" who terrorize the citizens of Toronto are almost certainly not followers of Islam, but in some ways they, David Dingwall and the people now pushing the idea of legalized polygamy and polyandry all share certain values in common. In every case, they have no allegiance to any overarching set of values, but are simply in it for themselves and their own personal gain. The Ganstas and David Dingwall are easy to figure out, Ganstas want your money and will personally come out and use force against you to impose their will. Dingwall and his "crew" are a bit more subtle, they use lawyers and creative interpretations of the rules and regulations to extract your money. The polyandrists (for want of a better term) simply want to tear down social constructs which have lasted centuries because it interferes with their own wishes and desires. While many of us might say "who cares if they want to marry five different people?", they also want to use the power of the State to enforce their desires, and of course the State will also be used to extend many privileges and benefits designed to assist the family in its primary duty of child rearing to all these family analogues.

"We" have difficulty countering any of this, since "we" have been denied any framework of reference to do so. Toronto "ganstas" are not greedy amoral monsters, the problem is we are not "inclusive", or "guns" or declining welfare benefits or whatever. Dingwall sits there and demands his "entitlements", even though a person who voluntarily leaves his employment isn't entitled to anything. (Accepting and indeed demanding a severance under these conditions should result in fines and a jail term for fraud and breach of trust). Arguments for polygamy and polyandry are of course identical to the ones for "gay marriage"; any attempt to question these concepts is simply met with a barrage of abuse and a refusal to answer any of the questions raised. Suggesting that parenting and child rearing is a special duty which should be rewarded or protected by society isn't on in these circles, they are simply demanding they get benefits and rewards as well.

The radical Islamist can move in quite nicely in this environment. He is a moral absolutist, who also realizes that "we" cannot or will not support our values, since we have essentially reduced our values to milking the system in order to satisfy our personal wants. Like the gansta, he wants to impose his will, but unlike the gansta, he has a very deep set of values which will sustain him through all kinds of adversity.

Now it is a difficult task to agree on a set of values (much less live up to them), and this sort of project will actually take generations. Americans are raised on a clear set of guiding principles in their Constitution, and are taught these from childhood in their schools, history, mythology and so on. If we want to have the same clarity of purpose as the American Administration, John Howard's Australia, Tony Blair (although the rest of the Labour Party is wavering), then we need to start working on this now.


----------



## Acorn (6 Feb 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Maybe we should put up some mental "Don't poke or throw things at the Arabs" signs.  Eventually they will probably show up here on a refugee claim, and we should be in a position to welcome them, but not cater to them.



The trouble is we're not dealing with an Internet "don't feed the trolls" type of situation. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

In any case, I think I have to side with the "civil society" camp, as opposed to 48's offerings. The fact is, we do live in a society with imposed norms of civility and morality, even though we don't see it. Personally, I don't believe that is being eroded, as a_majoor suggests, by our level of tolerance, however, I do see that tolerance being tested.

Edward has quite eloquently defined the issue of values. To recap, we have low-level civil disipline (to redefine the terms) in the family - one shows respect for elders, for example - this transcends culture. On the other we have the macro-societal civil discipline. This can be enforced through religion (Judeo-Cristian and Muslim restrictions - on diet, dress and deportment) or through what Kirkhill describes as "people who are just plain tired..." of an endless cycle of revenge and violence. Our Common Law evolved from that attitude.

Our society is sliding down the slope to barbarism though - less common respect, less civility - maybe we are heading toward 48's "society?"


----------



## 3rd Herd (6 Feb 2006)

Acorn said:
			
		

> The fact is, we do live in a society with imposed norms of civility and morality, even though we don't see it. Personally, I don't believe that is being eroded, as a_majoor suggests, by our level of tolerance, however, I do see that tolerance being tested.
> 
> Edward has quite eloquently defined the issue of values. To recap, we have low-level civil disipline (to redefine the terms) in the family - one shows respect for elders, for example - this transcends culture. On the other we have the macro-societal civil discipline. This can be enforced through religion (Judeo-Cristian and Muslim restrictions - on diet, dress and deportment) or through what Kirkhill describes as "people who are just plain tired..." of an endless cycle of revenge and violence. Our Common Law evolved from that attitude.
> 
> Our society is sliding down the slope to barbarism though - less common respect, less civility - maybe we are heading toward 48's "society?"



Accorn

The first issue with the change in the value structure goes back to the time of the introduction of the television into the family home. Now this is key for a number of reasons. Everybody was drawn to this new invention, pass time became sitting in front of the TV. Interaction slowed down both in the internal family structure, "sush the show is on" to the pure interest of the show itself. An external effect was now their was a reduction in family verses family contact as everyone in their own home watching TV. We all know the humans will mimic from clothing styles to actions. So to a certain extent society values are coming from the TV. Less interaction less chance to practice polite social interaction. 

Next we have the beginning of the "latch key child" or the child that returns home from school and amuses themselves until mom or dad get home from work. Mom, dad tired from work, child have home work, TV less interaction, generation two. 

Lastly, we come to today and the Internet and computer age. To a certain extent children are being overwhelmed by this. Facets range from your "all day gamers and chat forum types" to the widespread intergration into schools. An intergration which to some extent has replaced traditional book learning. And several school districts have been experimenting with computers doing the teaching. What we do have again for the third generation is a lack of social interaction and a almost overwhelming technology.

Add in the success of the equal rights movement in their shift of values. And the impact here was the following of the wayside of "polite society". Opening a door for a member of the opposite gender became taboo for example. So yes in three generations yes a major portion of polite society has slipped away.

For some this "change" has been recognized and "change" is being implemented. With the high school based computers several schools have a "wean off program". Basically loading a class or two into buses and a week or two of "back to nature" camping. Sort of a win win situation in that the children are now interacting socially more as the computers are no longer there. The better programshave a high degree of interaction built into the in varrious forms. I know of several larger city schools that have taken this approach.

A method found in the elementry schools is a "gotcha" program in which the child receives a slip to drop into a end of the week draw for a small prize. Earning a "gotcha slip" can be done by saying please and thank you to helping another student but the entire system is built on manners and politeness. Schools themselves as a whole have also reinstutionalized conduct of what is expected of their students in a "polite society". For those of you with sons or daughters look in the front of their school student hand book especially in elementary. Or the next time you drop them off, look just inside the front door. In a "good" school you cannot miss it. In a nut shell behaviour modification.

Now back to overall society in general, yes there is a small shift back to polite society in major urban centers. To be honest to me in rural areas I do not think the slide away from polite society was as great. Afterall many rural areas retained that sort of familiar social intimacy of earlier generations verses the hustle and bustle of urban centers. Just my thought on the decline of polite society.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (6 Feb 2006)

Acorn said:
			
		

> The trouble is we're not dealing with an Internet "don't feed the trolls" type of situation. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.



I am definitely not suggesting "ignoring" anything.  But if you have a wasps nest, do you knock it down with a stick, or do you blast it from a distance with high pressure chemicals after dark?  Responding in kind to petty crap is a waste of time.  Better to quietly read the extremist crap and say nothing, then track the sources, find a cell of dinks and waste them (of course if its justified...blah...free speech...blah...talking about terrorists).



			
				Acorn said:
			
		

> Our society is sliding down the slope to barbarism though - less common respect, less civility - maybe we are heading toward 48's "society?"



I'm not sure about the barbarism part.  That would suggest that maybe a-holes could get purged, and they seem to flourish these days.  I think people are getting beat down and tired.  All they see is a total lack of accounting from the legal system, both at street level and from their government.  They see normal people doing normal things, like holding a kid that egged their house, then getting sued.  They see their kids coming home with report cards that are not allowed to have a harsh word in them, and hear how the bully in the class cant be spoken to because the bullies parents are louder.  All around us we are bombarded with signs that indicate "your opinion does not matter".  That is where you get your "silent majority" from.  Any time someone wants to speak up, they get crushed, labeled and ignored (albeit, that should be okay for the hippies).  No body wants to advocate common sense, because there is always some civil libertarian that will scream about some crap and make them look like a horrible person.  Look at the demonetization of Harper in the last election.  Just ludicrous some of the crap being thrown around.  
We talked in other threads about the "Broken Windows" approach to law enforcement.  The same principles can be applied to regular societal rules.  When someone is being a jackhole, call them on it.  That's what used to happen in "the old days".  Or if someone is giving crap to said jackhole, and they start getting flack back, stick up for them.  All of a sudden, the Joe citizen starts thinking "maybe I can do something" or at least has a story to pass on of "you should have seen what happened at the mall today".  
Canadians have no sense of ownership to this country.  They need some sort of leadership to start getting them to take personal active pride in this greatest of nations, and take a little responsibility for it too.


----------



## 3rd Herd (6 Feb 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I think people are getting beat down and tired.  All they see is a total lack of accounting from the legal system, both at street level and from their government.  They see normal people doing normal things, like holding a kid that egged their house, then getting sued.  They see their kids coming home with report cards that are not allowed to have a harsh word in them, and hear how the bully in the class cant be spoken to because the bullies parents are louder.  All around us we are bombarded with signs that indicate "your opinion does not matter".  That is where you get your "silent majority" from.  Any time someone wants to speak up, they get crushed, labeled and ignored (albeit, that should be okay for the hippies).  No body wants to advocate common sense, because there is always some civil libertarian that will scream about some crap and make them look like a horrible person.



'Okay dogs come on, walk time, your master has to do some thinking'. I think you have made some very excellent points here Zipper. First off the 'beaten and down and tired" syndrome in at least two professions I know about teaching and law enforcement. With regard to teaching you have mentioned one of the key issues the inability  to call a "spade a spade". Three times a year I dread the filling out of report cards "John displays an over developed sense of physical interaction with his peers", "Susie has remarkably well developed vocal abilities and should be encouraged to concentrate on other classroom skills" and the list goes on. It has gotten to the point now were you just cut and pasted the most applicable politically correct comment into the box from a ministry supplied lists.

 Along with another favorite of mine "psychologists have SUGGESTED that it is detrimental to a child's well being if he/she is failled and not kept with his/her peers." Okay, no epidemiological studies performed just a suggestion from a psychologists from another country and the civil libertarians jumped all over it as Gospel faith. Detentions are deemed as cruel and usual punishment in todays schools. And then the public wonders why incidents such as Rena Virk's death occur. Add in the new definition of professionalism "keep your mouth shut so you will not put the 'profession' in a bad spot light in the public's view" So now we have one of the main institutions of society in which there is no recourse to what society had previously deemed as unacceptable. If I can get away with it in school then I can get away with it in society in general. After all there is no recourse in the court system either. No one wants to advocate common sense as to do so is going to be turned into an attack on one of the many self interest groups. One of the nicest aspects of working two jobs is that after dealling with the fine upstanding youth of today in the classroom and having ones hands tied behind your back you report in for your second job. One of the first things you hear is "Golf 32 I am on on my why back to the station with one in custody, John so and so". The cell door is unlocked, pers property box is out and a smile of at least one nights justice slowly creeps across your face.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (6 Feb 2006)

The First Amendment in the United States is the return of a very old and very healthy custom.  Amongst the ancient Celts and Norse, the Bards or Skalds had immunity, so that they would be free to speak the truth.  If a King or Chieftains actions were foolish, he feared the Bard or Skalds mockery would speed word of his foolishness across the land, and if truly memorable, across the ages.  Likewise all sought to be praised by Bard and Skald for generosity, courage, wisdom, as that fame too spread quickly.  This was a safety net for the society, for the Bards or Skalds could hold up the most powerful priest, the most willful King, or touchy champion to ridicule if his actions had become foolish or shameful, without presenting a challenge to their position.  Were a figure so mocked to react violently or angrily to the implied criticism, they would forfeit all respect in the eyes of the community.  If you can't take a joke, get out of politics, even back then.
      In the same way our political cartoonists lampoon the powerful, the morally self-righteous when their actions stand at odds with their stated beliefs.  In the case of Islam, the belief system is as morally sound as Christianity or Judaism (I'm a heathen myself so have no particular issue with Islam), but some of its clerics have turned the centers of learning and wisdom, into palaces of hatred where young men and women are turned into little better than disposable weapons.
      For a time when Christianity was burning books and free thinkers, Islam kept alive the memory of the pagan past, the learning of the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and Persians.  For a time Islam was the light of reason and learning in an age when our own ancestors were murdering each other over the scraps of fallen Rome.  Now it is the lands of Islam that have fallen to bands of thugs, and madmen masquerading as priests.  Perhaps it is our job to remind them from time to time, that enlightenment, not martyrdom was the goal that they once strived for.  If there are priests of any faith (my own most definitely included) who are so blindly intolerant that they demand death as the answer to anyone daring to criticize or mock them for conduct that is so contrary to faith they espouse, then they truly are deserving of our mockery.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Feb 2006)

This essay by Theodore Dalrymple touches on the point I raised (what are our values anyway?) and the way the Islamic radicals are able to exploit this.



> *Is “Old Europe” Doomed?
> *
> By Theodore Dalrymple
> February 6th, 2006
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Feb 2006)

mainer:

Try this one one for size - the Bards and Skalds supplied trusted commentary on the power structure, the King.  Their views could make or break a King.

Their role, I think I could argue, was taken up by priests in other societies.  Using a combination of the bully pulpit and a direct line to god to enhance authority they supplied the moral underpinning for the power structure.  This kept European monarchs in power for the best part of a millenium - until the masses learned to read themselves and draw their own conclusions.  As others have pointed out Islam has not yet come to similar conclusions.  Their priests still make and break kings.

In modern society the Bard/Priests role has been taken over by the media.  They make or break kings.  Unfortunately in our society we employ more scolds than bards and in the absence of kings they choose to scold all power.  The only societies with bards are those that are run by "kings" and the bards are on the pay-roll.

Net effect on modern western society is to distrust all power,  leaving the "kings' with the only cohesive supporting population.

A possible solution is perhaps to be found with the internet in that it may have the same impact on the media that Gutenberg and Caxton had on the priests with their printing presses.

But democracy pulled the props out from under the priests that buttressed power.  We are, perhaps, suffering from a surfeit of democracy when we find ourselves confronting centralized power.

Can the internet be used to pull the props out from the scolding press so as to support a more democratically acceptable central authority?  In other words allow people to believe that all politicians are not all crooks all the time?

Do we want that? Is it even possible for democracy to build a cohesive structure?  

Or is the best we can hope for is that the internet bypasses the Kings' paid bards in centralized states so that we all suffer the same disadvantages that are inherent in democracies?

By the way, if anyone comes up with the definitive answer let me know because I need help with life, the universe and everything.  42 isn't cutting it.  ;D


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (7 Feb 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> mainer:
> 
> Try this one one for size - the Bards and Skalds supplied trusted commentary on the power structure, the King.  Their views could make or break a King.
> 
> Their role, I think I could argue, was taken up by priests in other societies.  Using a combination of the bully pulpit and a direct line to god to enhance authority they supplied the moral underpinning for the power structure.  This kept European monarchs in power for the best part of a millenium - until the masses learned to read themselves and draw their own conclusions.  As others have pointed out Islam has not yet come to similar conclusions.  Their priests still make and break kings.


     You are quite right, the Bards and Skalds could make or break a King, as your reputation was important in securing the loyalty of your fighting men, and the pre-Christian European kings were not absolute, removable by the the people that they served, via the Althing or Celtic equivalent.  It took the Christian priesthood joining its power to the monarchy to give the divine right of kings, establishing a divine sanction for absolute power and instantly equate resistance with blasphemy.  While Bards and Skalds were not part of the ruling structure of their society, the priests of any faith often are.  
      The Reformation weakened the Church in Europe, and the separation of Cannon (Church law) from secular civil law allowed the progression of European culture, and the eventual separation of Church and State that we take for granted in North America.  In many Islamic countries, Cannon law is the civil law.  When the priests speak, the people take the word of the priest to be the will of God and thus the law.  If your law is religious, you will expect it to be the only true law, and punish others for not honouring it.
      Our society functions under civil law, we allow our citizens to follow their own faiths and cultures as long astheir faiths and cultures permit us to continue to live and worship as we choose under the laws of the nation in which we live..  Immigrants whose religious or cultural beliefs demand that we give up our own may either change their beliefs, or return to a country where these intolerance's are acceptable.
     I am a heathen ex-soldier, one of my neighbors is a Baptist youth pastor, another a Buddist pacifist; we get along because each of our creeds accepts the others right to chose for themselves, practice as they will, so long as we all accept the laws of the land that we share.  If radical Islam denies the rest of us the right to practice and speak as we wish, then it is not welcome in my land.  It should also be remembered that many of our own Islamic Canadians came here fleeing religious and secular tyranny, and are in no way accepting the hate filled messages we see in the papers.  The majority of Islamics in Canada make excellent Canadians. Those of any faith or political persuasion who feel that their beliefs give them the right to punish those who disagree with them are not welcome.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Feb 2006)

> I am a heathen ex-soldier, one of my neighbors is a Baptist youth pastor, another a Buddist pacifist; we get along because each of our creeds accepts the others right to chose for themselves, practice as they will, so long as we all accept the laws of the land that we share.  If radical Islam denies the rest of us the right to practice and speak as we wish, then it is not welcome in my land.



There's that tolerance thing again.  Hear, Hear.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Feb 2006)

Mr. Costello, in Australia, took something of a _love it or leave it_ approach.  Britain’s _Daily Telegraph_ looks at it differently – maybe, its editorial page suggests, we are the problem.  Here it is, with my emphasis added, reproduced under the fair dealing provisions of our Copyright Act:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/02/06/dl0601.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/02/06/ixoplead.html


> Why extremists treat us with contempt
> 
> British subjects march through the streets of the capital calling for their fellow citizens to be "beheaded", "massacred" and "annihilated".
> 
> ...


----------



## Glorified Ape (7 Feb 2006)

Regarding the issue of respecting the values of your adopted country, I read an excellent letter in the Toronto Star in which the topic is discussed in relation to the whole hooplah about the cartoons and resultant boycott of Danish products. I emphasized the particularly relevant portion but it's a great statement overall. 

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139267413917&call_pageid=968332189003&col=968350116895



> What point to ban?
> Feb. 7, 2006. 01:00 AM
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


----------



## GO!!! (7 Feb 2006)

GA - excellent points.

I too will share the righteous indignation of the slighted muslim - the minute they begin smashing their iPods and torching their Mercedes Cars in public.


----------



## Bert (7 Feb 2006)

Not to bring a tangent to the thread, however the following Stratfor article suggests there are 
strong gulfs between various perspectives and adgendas.  As like in Australia, the clash of ideas are quite
formidable.  


www.stratfor.com
Stratfor Geopolitical Intelligence Report
7 Feb. 2006

The Cartoon Backlash: Redefining Alignments
By George Friedman

There is something rotten in the state of Denmark. We just couldn't help but open with that -- with apologies to Shakespeare. Nonetheless, there is something exceedingly odd in the notion that Denmark -- which has made a national religion of not being offensive to anyone -- could become the focal point of Muslim rage. The sight of the Danish and Norwegian embassies being burned in Damascus -- and Scandinavians in general being warned to leave Islamic countries -- has an aura of the surreal: Nobody gets mad at Denmark or Norway. Yet, death threats are now being hurled against the Danes and Norwegians as though they were mad-dog friends of Dick Cheney. History has its interesting moments.

At the same time, the matter is not to be dismissed lightly. The explosion in the Muslim world over the publication of 12 cartoons by a minor Danish newspaper -- cartoons that first appeared back in September -- has, remarkably, redefined the geopolitical matrix of the U.S.-jihadist war. Or, to be more precise, it has set in motion something that appears to be redefining that matrix. We do not mean here simply a clash of civilizations, although that is undoubtedly part of it. Rather, we mean that alignments within the Islamic world and within the West appear to be in flux in some very important ways.

Let's begin with the obvious: the debate over the cartoons. There is a prohibition in Islam against making images of the Prophet Mohammed. There also is a prohibition against ridiculing the Prophet. Thus, a cartoon that ridicules the Prophet violates two fundamental rules simultaneously. Muslims around the world were deeply offended by these cartoons. 

It must be emphatically pointed out that the Muslim rejection of the cartoons does not derive from a universalistic view that one should respect religions. The criticism does not derive from a secularist view that holds all religions in equal indifference and requires "sensitivity" not on account of theologies, but in order to avoid hurting anyone's feelings. The Muslim view is theological: The Prophet Mohammed is not to be ridiculed or portrayed. But violating the sensibilities of other religions is not taboo. Therefore, Muslims frequently, in action, print and speech, do and say things about other religions -- Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism -- that followers of these religions would find defamatory. The Taliban, for example, were not concerned about the views among other religions when they destroyed the famous Buddhas in Bamiyan. The Muslim demand is honest and authentic: It is for respect for Islam, not a general secular respect for all beliefs as if they were all equal.

The response from the West, and from Europe in particular, has been to frame the question as a matter of free speech. European newspapers, wishing to show solidarity with the Danes, have reprinted the cartoons, further infuriating the Muslims. European liberalism has a more complex profile than Islamic rage over insults. In many countries, it is illegal to incite racial hatred. It is difficult to imagine that the defenders of these cartoons would sit by quietly if a racially defamatory cartoon were published. Or, imagine the reception among liberal Europeans -- or on any American campus -- if a professor published a book purporting to prove that women were intellectually inferior to men. (The mere suggestion of such a thing, by the president of Harvard in a recent speech, led to calls for his resignation.)

In terms of the dialogue over the cartoons, there is enough to amuse even the most jaded observers. The sight of Muslims arguing the need for greater sensitivity among others, and of advocates of laws against racial hatred demanding absolute free speech, is truly marvelous to behold. There is, of course, one minor difference between the two sides: The Muslims are threatening to kill people who offend them and are burning embassies -- in essence, holding entire nations responsible for the actions of a few of their citizens. The European liberals are merely making speeches. They are not threatening to kill critics of the modern secular state. That also distinguishes the Muslims from, say, Christians in the United States who have been affronted by National Endowment for the Arts grants. 

These are not trivial distinctions. But what is important is this: The controversy over the cartoons involves issues so fundamental to the two sides that neither can give in. The Muslims cannot accept visual satire involving the Prophet. Nor can the Europeans accept that Muslims can, using the threat of force, dictate what can be published. Core values are at stake, and that translates into geopolitics. 

In one sense, there is nothing new or interesting in intellectual inconsistency or dishonesty. Nor is there very much new about Muslims -- or at least radical ones -- threatening to kill people who offend them. What is new is the breadth of the Muslim response and the fact that it is directed obsessively not against the United States, but against European states. 

One of the primary features of the U.S.-jihadist war has been that each side has tried to divide the other along a pre-existing fault line. For the United States, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the manipulation of Sunni-Shiite tensions has been evident. For the jihadists, and even more for non-jihadist Muslims caught up in the war, the tension between the United States and Europe has been a critical fault line to manipulate. It is significant, then, that the cartoon affair threatens to overwhelm both the Euro-American split and the Sunni-Shiite split. It is, paradoxically, an affair that unifies as well as divides.

The Fissures in the West

It is dangerous and difficult to speak of the "European position" -- there really isn't one. But there is a Franco-German position that generally has been taken to be the European position. More precisely, there is the elite Franco-German position that The New York Times refers to whenever it mentions "Europe." That is the Europe that we mean now.

In the European view, then, the United States massively overreacted to 9/11. Apart from the criticism of Iraq, the Europeans believe that the United States failed to appreciate al Qaeda's relative isolation within the Islamic world and, by reshaping its relations with the Islamic world over 9/11, caused more damage. Indeed, this view goes, the United States increased the power of al Qaeda and added unnecessarily to the threat it presents. Implicit in the European criticisms -- particularly from the French -- was the view that American cowboy insensitivity to the Muslim world not only increased the danger after 9/11, but effectively precipitated 9/11. From excessive support for Israel to support for Egypt and Jordan, the United States alienated the Muslims. In other words, 9/11 was the result of a lack of sophistication and poor policy decisions by the United States -- and the response to the 9/11 attacks was simply over the top.

Now an affair has blown up that not only did not involve the United States, but also did not involve a state decision. The decision to publish the offending cartoons was that of a Danish private citizen. The Islamic response has been to hold the entire state responsible. As the cartoons were republished, it was not the publications printing them that were viewed as responsible, but the states in which they were published. There were attacks on embassies, gunmen in EU offices at Gaza, threats of another 9/11 in Europe. 

From a psychological standpoint, this drives home to the Europeans an argument that the Bush administration has been making from the beginning -- that the threat from Muslim extremists is not really a response to anything, but a constantly present danger that can be triggered by anything or nothing. European states cannot control what private publications publish. That means that, like it or not, they are hostage to Islamic perceptions. The threat, therefore, is not under their control. And thus, even if the actions or policies of the United States did precipitate 9/11, the Europeans are no more immune to the threat than the Americans are.

This combines with the Paris riots last November and the generally deteriorating relationships between Muslims in Europe and the dominant populations. The pictures of demonstrators in London, threatening the city with another 9/11, touch extremely sensitive nerves. It becomes increasingly difficult for Europeans to distinguish between their own relationship with the Islamic world and the American relationship with the Islamic world. A sense of shared fate emerges, driving the Americans and Europeans closer together. At a time when pressing issues like Iranian nuclear weapons are on the table, this increases Washington's freedom of action. Put another way, the Muslim strategy of splitting the United States and Europe -- and using Europe to constrain the United States -- was heavily damaged by the Muslim response to the cartoons.

The Intra-Ummah Divide

But so too was the split between Sunni and Shia. Tensions between these two communities have always been substantial. Theological differences aside, both international friction and internal friction have been severe. The Iran-Iraq war, current near-civil war in Iraq, tensions between Sunnis and Shia in the Gulf states, all point to the obvious: These two communities are, while both Muslim, mistrustful of one another. Shiite Iran has long viewed Sunni Saudi Arabia as the corrupt tool of the United States, while radical Sunnis saw Iran as collaborating with the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The cartoons are the one thing that both communities -- not only in the Middle East but also in the wider Muslim world -- must agree about. Neither side can afford to allow any give in this affair and still hope to maintain any credibility in the Islamic world. Each community -- and each state that is dominated by one community or another -- must work to establish (or maintain) its Islamic credentials. A case in point is the violence against Danish and Norwegian diplomatic offices in Syria (and later, in Lebanon and Iran) -- which undoubtedly occurred with Syrian government involvement. Syria is ruled by Alawites, a Shiite sect. Syria -- aligned with Iran -- is home to a major Sunni community; there is another in Lebanon. The cartoons provided what was essentially a secular regime the opportunity to take the lead in a religious matter, by permitting the attacks on the embassies. This helped consolidate the regime's position, however temporarily. 

Indeed, the Sunni and Shiite communities appear to be competing with each other as to which is more offended. The Shiite Iranian-Syrian bloc has taken the lead in violence, but the Sunni community has been quite vigorous as well. The cartoons are being turned into a test of authenticity for Muslims. To the degree that Muslims are prepared to tolerate or even move past this issue, they are being attacked as being willing to tolerate the Prophet's defamation. The cartoons are forcing a radicalization of parts of the Muslim community that are uneasy with the passions of the moment.

Beneficiaries on Both Sides

The processes under way in the West and within the Islamic world are naturally interacting. The attacks on embassies, and threats against lives, that are based on nationality alone are radicalizing the Western perspective of Islam. The unwillingness of Western governments to punish or curtail the distribution of the cartoons is taken as a sign of the real feelings of the West. The situation is constantly compressing each community, even as they are divided. 

One might say that all this is inevitable. After all, what other response would there be, on either side? But this is where the odd part begins: The cartoons actually were published in September, and -- though they drew some complaints, even at the diplomatic level -- didn't come close to sparking riots. Events unfolded slowly: The objections of a Muslim cleric in Denmark upon the initial publication by Jyllands-Posten eventually prompted leaders of the Islamic Faith Community to travel to Egypt, Syria and Lebanon in December, purposely "to stir up attitudes against Denmark and the Danes" in response to the cartoons. As is now obvious, attitudes have certainly been stirred.

There are beneficiaries. It is important to note here that the fact that someone benefits from something does not mean that he was responsible for it. (We say this because in the past, when we have noted the beneficiaries of an event or situation, the not-so-bright bulbs in some quarters took to assuming that we meant the beneficiaries deliberately engineered the event.) 

Still, there are two clear beneficiaries. One is the United States: The cartoon affair is serving to further narrow the rift between the Bush administration's view of the Islamic world and that of many Europeans. Between the Paris riots last year, the religiously motivated murder of a Dutch filmmaker and the "blame Denmark" campaign, European patience is wearing thin. The other beneficiary is Iran. As Iran moves toward a confrontation with the United States over nuclear weapons, this helps to rally the Muslim world to its side: Iran wants to be viewed as the defender of Islam, and Sunnis who have raised questions about its flirtations with the United States in Iraq are now seeing Iran as the leader in outrage against Europe.

The cartoons have changed the dynamics both within Europe and the Islamic world, and between them. That is not to say the furor will not die down in due course, but it will take a long time for the bad feelings to dissipate. This has created a serious barrier between moderate Muslims and Europeans who were opposed to the United States. They were the ones most likely to be willing to collaborate, and the current uproar makes that collaboration much more difficult. 

It's hard to believe that a few cartoons could be that significant, but these are. 
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Feb 2006)

As the author states, nobody doesn't like Denmark.  It and Norway have been poster children for what Canada thinks it is.  They have been putting their money and their blood into the field at a higher level than we have.  They seem to have been largely successful as honest brokers.  If so then that is their threat.  

Iran, and others, need a polarized world. They can't get their people to go to war against "nice guys", however that is defined.  The Danes, Norwegians (and Canada for that matter) when succesful, work against that polarization.  That makes them targets.


----------



## Jungle (7 Feb 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> GA - excellent points.
> 
> I too will share the righteous indignation of the slighted muslim - the minute they begin smashing their iPods and torching their Mercedes Cars in public.


Yeah, and they ditch the booze and the bacon they enjoy so much... (I'm not making this up   )
When I don't play by my own rules, I don't expect others to respect them...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Feb 2006)

When _*I*_ talk about "our values"; this is what I mean: (via Instapundit 07 Feb 2006)



> And reader Michael McDowell isn't having any of it:
> 
> _Zerbisias condemns those Westerners who "claim to be morally superior." Well that is absolute horseshit. I am tired of being told not to judge other cultures through my "American lens" because I don’t understand their circumstances. I believe in equal rights without regard to race, religion, color, gender or country or origin. I believe in the freedom of homosexuals to marry and live freely in society. I believe in freedom of expression, and speech, and the free exchange of ideas. I believe in kindness, compassion, consideration, and that dogs make life better.* I don’t "claim to be morally superior" to those ass-hat murderers; I am morally superior*._
> 
> Indeed. You'd expect lefties like Zerbisias to side with people like McDowell, and Zeyad, over a bunch of sexist, homophobic theocrats -- but that would require that they side with America, too. Which is right out.



So here is where we must make our stand: Equal rights without regard to race, religion, color, gender or country or origin. Freedom of expression, and speech, and the free exchange of ideas.

As soldiers and service members, we will, of course, place our lives on the line to defend these ideals. For the rest of you, stand up for these rights at home, at work, in the schools, and in any and every other forum you can possibly make your voices heard. Huntington was right, WW IV really is the "Clash of Civilizations", and for all our sakes, we need to do all we can to win.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (8 Feb 2006)

I dug up an old news story that cuts to the heart of the matter.

 http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/03/12/afghan.buddha.02/

     When the radical Islamic Taliban ran Afghanistan, they used their power to root out and destroy the sacred images of the Buddhists that had been the legacy of the Afghan people for centuries.  They showed no respect, and indeed deepest contempt for the faith of others, or for those of their own people who still cleave to Buddism.  Moderate Islamics from around the world joined Western and UN leaders in pleading with the Taliban to stop, pointing out that this could only blacken the reputation of Islam.  The radical Taliban continued to persecute any faith not its own until our own and allied troops removed them from power after their involvement with 9/11.
      Radical Islamics have showed us the reverence with which they treat the images of other faiths, and in their arrogant hypocrisy continue to demand that we obey their taboos about their images.  Is it any wonder that cartoonists saw the need to caricature them?  The radical fringe of Islam has succeeded in blackening the image of the entire faith, and it is up the the moderates to restore it.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Feb 2006)

A link to some interesting symposium comments on this issue. Note the common core values of Islam drive and amplify this behaviour, and also note some of the time lines; these cartoons were published in Sept 2005, so why is this an issue now and not then?

http://www.nationalreview.com/symposium/symposium200602081005.asp


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 Feb 2006)

Okay, these are right from the source, actual passages from the Koran:

*The Immunity
[9.1] (This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Apostle towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.

[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

[9.63] Do they not know that whoever acts in opposition to Allah and His Apostle, he shall surely have the fire of hell to abide in it? That is the grievous abasement.
[9.64] The hypocrites fear lest a chapter should be sent down to them telling them plainly of what is in their hearts. Say: Go on mocking, surely Allah will bring forth what you fear.
[9.65] And if you should question them, they would certainly say: We were only idly discoursing and sporting. Say: Was it at Allah and His communications and His Apostle that you mocked?
[9.66] Do not make excuses; you have denied indeed after you had believed; if We pardon a party of you, We will chastise (another) party because they are guilty.

[9.73] Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate*

Note that the name of the chapter is "The Immunity".  Basically, if you are Muslim, if you choose to go and do anything in the name of Allah, you are justified and righteous.  

Not saying that Christianity doesn't have it's own harsh passages:

*Gen 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. 

Exd 4:22-24 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel [is] my son, [even] my firstborn:  And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, [even] thy firstborn. And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.  * 

One does not need to be an accomplished scholar to go through a religious text to find scriptures that can justify violence.  If someone put their mind to it, you might find something in Buddhism to justify killing for it.  

I may be getting out of my lanes, but I read an article (of course can't find it now) but it spoke of religious maturity and how these things go in cycles.  The way the Islamic extremists are conducting themselves isn't so different than the zealotry of the Crusades, and the Inquisition.  Those took place about a 1000 years ago or so.  So how old is Islam?  The Prophet Muhammad died in 632, and the religion didn't get big enough to get noticed by the Christian church until 1096 when the first crusade was launched to take back the Holy land from the Turks (although arguably just an excuse for a Catholic land grab).  So is it possible that this extremism is a natural progression of a large organized religion, compounded by the fact that by it's very design Islam is a very intolerant and harsh religion?  I'm not suggesting that we ignore them and let them bomb and murder at will.  But maybe they will realize, within their own ranks, that they have gotten a bit off course and bring things back to something a little more reasonable.  

And as an aside (since we can't seem to shake the cartoon debate) how can anyone get upset about making a cartoon with Muhammed in it?  If it is Koranic law to not make any depictions of him, how does anyone know what he looks like?  If you don't know what he looks like, how can you get pee'd off when someone draws him?  Must be a dumb Christian thing ???


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Feb 2006)

> Those took place about a 1000 years ago or so.



Try Drumcree, Northern Ireland,  2 years ago.  In Christian society you can find examples of religious intolerance down to the present day.  In the Anglosphere we passed the hump about 200 years ago but there continued to be pockets after that - the KKK in the US comes to mind as well.  There were elements of intolerance associated with Europe in the 1930s and 40s, and even in Canada in 1919? with the Sikhs being rejected at Vancouver, with Jews being being denied entry in the 40's, .... it is possible to go on.

This is not to excuse anything that anyone has done.  I have no problem in dealing with problems by applying "lethal force".  I just want to be sure that the target is clearly defined and collateral damage is minimized - not even from a moral position, but just because it is inefficient. It wastes resources and it creates a broader problem.

There is a problem, but it comes from Ahmadinejad and his Ayatollahs, from Basher Assad, from Bin Laden-Zawahir-Zarqawi, possibly Kim Jong Il and likely many others.  But these are individuals, not races at large.

Would you propose levelling Shankill or Ardoyne Road in Northern Ireland to solve their problems? Or Jane and Finch to solve Toronto's gang problems?

Religion and the Koran are the tools used to gather support.  They are not the problem themselves.  Lack of religion doesn't solve the problem either.  If it did then the French with their religion of atheism (Laicete/Secularism), which is intolerant of any other belief, wouldn't be having the problems they are.

Again, this is not a clash of civilizations.  It is a power struggle amongst individuals.  Belief is what it has always been - a method of mobilizing support.

We need to fight back, but it does no good to broadly flail around an end up punching spectator's noses, even by accident.  All you are likely to accomplish is to convert the spectator into your opponent.

The "Great Man" theory of history has gone out of fashion and conspiracy theories are derided but when you look back at history all conflicts revolve around central characters, people, individuals.  More often than not the lead players are not the grass roots, far removed from the throne with no sense of ever being able to inhabit it, but instead the person next to the throne who feels they are being denied their due by the person currently occupying it.  Those are the individuals that agitate and seek broad support amongst the grass-roots and create revolutions.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 Feb 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Would you propose levelling Shankill or Ardoyne Road in Northern Ireland to solve their problems? Or Jane and Finch to solve Toronto's gang problems?



Actually, I would leave the community of the greater Jane/Finch area to solve it's own problems, since they created them themselves.  

My point to quote scripture was not to decry the books themselves, but to illustrate that "holy" word can be manipulated to justify anyone's means if they put their mind to it.  My other point was that if there are people willing to commit murder for the sake of a cartoon today, maybe down the road (ten, fifty, two hundred years) it won't seem like such a big deal.  
So far as Ireland goes, nobody really believes that has anything to do with religion still, do they?


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Feb 2006)

zipperhead_cop:

I understood where you were coming from and agreed with your position.  I just took exception to your suggestion that there was a millenium of difference in social evolution between Islam and Christianity.  My point was that there isn't that much difference in attitudes.  Within my 50 years I have know Christians with similar attitudes.

As to your point about nobody still believing that is about religion I think that goes to my point. It isn't about religion.  It is about power.  Religion just happens to be a convenient banner around which to get people to rally.  It can just easily be about bread and circuses, let them eat cake or nationalising the railroads.  It makes no odds.  Those that seek power look for an issue to cut a large chunk of support away from the other guy's base.

Cheers.


----------



## Glorified Ape (8 Feb 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Okay, these are right from the source, actual passages from the Koran:
> 
> *The Immunity
> [9.1] (This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Apostle towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.
> ...



Actually, Islam holds that Christians and Jews are both "believers" as they recognize the one and only god (allah, which means "god", it's not a name like "Jesus"). Islam, through its pillars, views Christians and Jews as "protected peoples" since they fulfill the most important criteria of all - the recognition and worship of the one and only god. Their non-recognition of the prophet Muhammad (secondary in importance) and their non-adherence to the same practices as Islam are what prevent them from equal status. Islam reveres the Torah/Old Testament, as well as Jesus' revisions to it. They revere Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc. as prophets. Nothing in those passages states that Muslims should kill non-Muslims, it just says they'll burn in hell/be punished by Allah. Even when the prophet's told to do something, that doesn't extend to everyone any more than the entirety of Islam should prophesize because Muhammad did it. There's no shortage of that kind of tripe in the New Testament or Torah either. As God/Allah/Jehova-Elohim/Whateverfantasybeing says: "Vengeance is mine", not any indignant, deity-worshipping twit with the means and inclination. 

As far as tolerance and civility go, Islam's got a much better track record than Christianity, even towards Christians - the Pact of Umar was far more than Christians were offering around the same time. It just so happens that the more intolerant, radical parts of Islam are empowered and active right now. The squeaky wheel gets the oil and all that. 



> Not saying that Christianity doesn't have it's own harsh passages:
> 
> *Gen 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
> 
> ...



I agree, though I think you might be hard pressed on the Buddhist thing. 



> I may be getting out of my lanes, but I read an article (of course can't find it now) but it spoke of religious maturity and how these things go in cycles.  The way the Islamic extremists are conducting themselves isn't so different than the zealotry of the Crusades, and the Inquisition.  Those took place about a 1000 years ago or so.  So how old is Islam?  The Prophet Muhammad died in 632, and the religion didn't get big enough to get noticed by the Christian church until 1096 when the first crusade was launched to take back the Holy land from the Turks (although arguably just an excuse for a Catholic land grab).  So is it possible that this extremism is a natural progression of a large organized religion, compounded by the fact that by it's very design Islam is a very intolerant and harsh religion?  I'm not suggesting that we ignore them and let them bomb and murder at will.  But maybe they will realize, within their own ranks, that they have gotten a bit off course and bring things back to something a little more reasonable.



I've wondered the same about the development of religions. I'm not sure they're really all that different from civilizations/societies - they go into and out of bad spots, often depending on the economic, political, environmental, and other changes/effects. That's not to say they're separate from civilizations/societies or that there isn't some reciprocal effect there. I don't think violence, ignorance, etc. is intrinsic to Islam any more than it is to Christianity or Judaism. Each have their militants, it's just a matter of how much power they hold and how much publicity they get. I think Kirkhill explained it best. 



> And as an aside (since we can't seem to shake the cartoon debate) how can anyone get upset about making a cartoon with Muhammed in it?  If it is Koranic law to not make any depictions of him, how does anyone know what he looks like?  If you don't know what he looks like, how can you get pee'd off when someone draws him?  Must be a dumb Christian thing ???



Islam isn't the only religion which is touchy about visual representations - if you read the Torah, you'll find plenty of condemnations of idolatry and I don't think you'll find many Jews drawing or using images of Abraham, Moses, Noah, etc. in their religious practices or even at all, for that matter. I could be wrong, though. I don't think this cartoon crap would be nearly as much of an issue if the climate of relations between the Islamic world (especially the Middle East) and the historically Christian world (IE the West) weren't as messed up as they currently are. 

There are all sorts of idiots right now of every denomination, ideology, etc. that scream for the death of someone for little reason other than they're angry. Just look at Ann Coulter and the other right-wing morons espousing crap like forced religious conversion for Muslims, making the Middle East a "parking lot", calling Muslims (or anyone with slightly darker-than-Nordic skin) "towel heads" "sand-n******", making stupid, ignorant, misinformed statements about the nature of Islam (and by extension, Muslims), and my personal pet peeve - referring to Muslims as "hadjis", which isn't necessarily insulting (though it often seems intended to be), it's just stupid.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 Feb 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> zipperhead_cop:
> 
> I understood where you were coming from and agreed with your position.  I just took exception to your suggestion that there was a millenium of difference in social evolution between Islam and Christianity.  My point was that there isn't that much difference in attitudes.  Within my 50 years I have know Christians with similar attitudes.
> 
> ...



+1
I agree, it is a power play wrapped up in a religious package.  I figured I would come across poorly treading into the religious ring, and quietly hoped someone would get what I was trying to put across.  Thanks for the assist, gents


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 Feb 2006)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I agree, though I think you might be hard pressed on the Buddhist thing.



*Cases for Violence—Interpretation of Duããhagãmani and the Reception of a Pervasive Myth in History of Sri Lanka

Though Pãli canonical texts do not contain explicit textual evidence to support violence or remarks to justify violence, certain genre of post-canonical literature, for example, one of the Pãli chronicles, the Mahãvamsa of Mahãnãma composed in Sri Lanka in the fifth CE, unfortunately contains a narrative which disturbs the pacifist image of Theravãda Buddhism. Though the intention of this particular monastic author, Mahãnãma, is open for debate, this isolated reference is problematic when placed within the early Buddhist Pãli canonical textual corpus. This pervasive narrative gives the impression that in certain circumstances when the ultimate end is noble, the use of certain degree of violence is not going to harm the Buddha’s doctrine of non-violence and pacifist path.

To examine justifications of political violence in Sri Lanka and the growth of nationalism, a careful study of the myth of the battle between King Duããhagãmani and King Elãra is essential. What Steven Kemper has rightly put as that: “The Past inhabits the present in a variety of ways—in practices, things and memory”6 demonstrates the implications of this myth on both Sinhala and Tamil communities in modern Sri Lanka.

The Mahãvamsa narrative discusses the war between King Duããhagãmani and King Elãra. While Duããhagãmani was a Sinhala in origin, a native of Sri Lanka, Elãra was a Dravidian and an invader. As the text records, in this complex ethnic battle, Duããhagãmani presented his war as a measure to protect Buddhism from the foreign rule of Elãra:

When the king Duããhagãmani had had a relic put into his spear he marched to Tissamahãrãma, and had shown favour to the brotherhood he said: ‘I will go on to the land on the further side of river to bring glory to the doctrine. Give us, that we may treat them with honour, bhikkhus who shall go on with us, since the sight of the bhikkhus is blessing and protection for us.’ (Mahãvamsa 25.1-4)

In this Mahãvamsa passage, the reference to “bring glory to the doctrine” can be taken as providing safety and protection to the Buddhist teachings, practices and institutions in Sri Lanka. “Brotherhood” refers to the Buddhist monastic community collectively known as the sangha. Having a company of bhikkhus (monks) with him while marching for war is perceived as an act of securing protection for Duããhagãmani himself at the time of war. However, the monks’ marching with troops is perceived by monks themselves “as a penance” (25.4). Placing a relic in the spear is an apotropaic action intended to ward off evil forces at times of troubles as believed in many pre-modern societies. 

Nevertheless, the task at hand for Duããhagãmani was a rather difficult one since the text represents Elãra as a righteous king. In a dual battle, Duããhagãmani killed Elãra (25:67-70). After Elãra’s death, Duããhagãmani honoured him by cremating him and marking the place with a monument and instituting a worship there.

The remorse that Duããhagãmani had after the battle was quite severe and similar to the one that Emperor Asoka had after his battle in Kãlinga. Like in the case of Emperor Asoka, a transformation occurs, though not so dramatic, in the life of Duããhagãmani through the intervention of Buddhist monastic community. Their intervention in removing Duããhagãmani’s remorse can be seen as a ‘rehabilitation strategy’ for an evil king who had executed a lot of suffering in pursuing a battle. In this case, the rehabilitation strategy is used to direct the king to Buddhist works. Though the ‘rehabilitation’ of the king is a noble one, the justifications that the monks provided in consoling the king are controversial and problematic. They bear serious implications on the issue whether there are justifications of violence within Theravãda Buddhism.

The Mahãvamsa states (25:104) that the arahants in Piyangudipa knowing Duããhagãmani’s remorse sent a group of eight holy monks to comfort him; when Duããhagãmani confessed that he had slaughtered millions, what they said to Duããhagãmani to eliminate his remorse is highly problematic:

From this deed arises no hindrance in thy way to heaven. Only one and a half human beings have been slain here by thee, O lord of men. The one had come unto the (three) refuges, the other had taken on himself the five precepts. Unbelievers and men of evil life were the rest, not more to be esteemed than beasts. But as for thee, thou wilt bring glory to the doctrine of the Buddha in manifold ways; therefore cast away care from thy heart, O ruler of men! Thus exhorted by them the great king took comfort” (Mahãvamsa 25:109-112).

As this Mahãvamsa passage demonstrates, Duããhagãmani’s remorse is eliminated by telling him that killing ‘evil unbelievers’ carries no more weight than killing animals. As practitioners of ‘loving kindness’ (mettã), Buddhists have an obligation to protect all forms of life. It is important to note that not only human beings but killing even animals is not encouraged in Buddhism.7 When contrasted with canonical doctrines and early Buddhist practices, this fifth century chronicle position is rather controversial. This passage in the Mahãvamsa seems to suggest that certain forms of violence such as killings during war can be allowed in certain circumstances such as in the case of threats to the survival of Buddhism in Sri Lanka during the time of Duããhagãmani. * 

Deliberately taken out of context ;D  (Gotta love those Google guys)


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Feb 2006)

More out of context Buddhism.  

CBC Interview with the Dalai Lama



> Hana Gartner: I'll work on it. I know that you believe that people are essentially benevolent and peaceful. You do. But then help me, as a parent, how do I explain to my children about 9/11, Madrid, Iraq, the Middle East, the horrible examples of anti-Semitism that we're experiencing right here?
> 
> Dalai Lama: Some crisis or violence here and there, it will always happen, always happen to human beings on this planet. This is a problem, all this happens. But then we have to look at whole picture. I think if you look at whole picture, I think today's world compared to early period 20th century, I think today much better, because I think awareness, I think, and because I think human way of thinking more widened.
> 
> ...



http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/dalailama/interview.html

Violence isn't always unjustified.  Doctrine of minimum force, least harm.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Feb 2006)

"Uncle Dali WANTS YOU! For the First Tactical Fast Attack (but minimal controled damage) Tibetan Expeditionary Force".

I want to see how they make saffron into a camo pattern. :warstory:


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Feb 2006)

Would they march to Mantras?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Feb 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Would they march to Mantras?


Man, and I thought the Highland Regiments has a slow cadence! ;D.  Who would lead it, the guy with the little drum on a handle with the balls on a string?  I love those things!

BTW, of course some other dink needs to be a headline grabber:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20060208/ca_pr_on_na/ns_prophet_drawings

That is, like, soooo last January...anyway, gawd!


----------



## winchable (9 Feb 2006)

Do those drums actually make a noise? I heard they were just for show!

I know Peter March and I've sat in on his classes.

The Muslims students who initially confronted him had a valid reason, they fell under the "don't shout fire" category I believe.
The ones who said "remove the drawings or face the consequences" should not be in university and I'm actually going to see if I can find them. Not for violent reasons, for reasons of discourse.

Being brought up in the Muslim tradition or any religious tradition really, I've always had serious issues with people who say they refuse to qualify/quantify God becuase that would degrade the concept yet go out and say things they've heard about God and not consider this somehow qualifying or quantifying God.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Feb 2006)

Che said:
			
		

> The ones who said "remove the drawings or face the consequences" should not be in university and I'm actually going to see if I can find them. Not for violent reasons, for reasons of discourse.



And after you have a hearty "discourse" please forward their info to your local RCMP or police station.  Best case scenario, they are religious bullies, heady with the ever-threat of jihadist random violence and could use a good sorting out from an officer about the consequences of making death threats.  
Worst case scenario, they are actually in a cell, and are zealots who would do something.  There are far too many stories of people who got killed by whackjobs who gave off lots of readable signs, but others failed to realize them, or take them seriously.  

These cartoons have got to be the dumbest rallying point for free speech ever.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2006)

The cartoons are only an excuse to try and trump our values in our own lands, and our own homes. Two perspectives:



> *Losing Civilization*
> Are we going to tolerate the downfall of Western ideals?
> 
> The great wealth and leisure created by modern technology have confused some in the modern age into thinking that history is linear. We expect that each generation will inevitably improve upon the last, as if we, the blessed of the 21st century, would never chase out Anaxagoras or execute Socrates — or allow others to do so — in our modern polis.
> ...


      

A follower of Islam has this to say, these would be good talking points for dealing with the slightly unhinged or those who would opress us by denying freedom of speach, assembly, religion etc:



> *Dreams & Realities*
> Cartoon problems.
> 
> By M. Zuhdi Jasser
> ...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (12 Feb 2006)

A great commentary from the Toronto Sun political cartoonist:


----------



## blueboy (12 Feb 2006)

What ever happened to Edward Campbell on this thread. I found his insight refreshing, and the fact that Australia has a politician that has a backbone to stand up and say things that we all believe is also refreshing. Maybe if we are lucky, the ideal of a Politician speaking the truth in a clear and concise fashion without any Spin Doctoring  could catch on here in Canada. It would be a breath of fresh air, as usually the technocrat political babble that spews from Ottawa sounds like oh so many used car salesmen telling us that the Corvette we are looking at was only driven by an old lady to church on Sundays.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Feb 2006)

blueboy said:
			
		

> What ever happened to Edward Campbell on this thread. {?}



Kirkhill, citing Adam Ferguson (1767), spoke of the _”amicable collisions”_ which served to _polish_ society and make our modern, enlightened, peaceful, secular, multicultural and mutually respectful society possible.  But, when two societies collide, if they have not both been _polished_ to roughly the same level by their own series of _amicable collisions_ then it may be that the requisite level of mutual respect and consequential peaceful intercourse is impossible.

But, consider: suppose the _collision_ between two societies is not _amicable_ at all.  Suppose, rather, that it is, more or less, _tectonic_ – one society is (or is perceived to be) sliding *over* the other, burying the other, in effect.  The collision would be, as the current one is, anything but amicable; tectonic shifts produce earthquakes.

I noted that a now forgotten commentator suggested that the ongoing, maybe continuous Muslim _rage_ is an acknowledgement that the ‘modern’ Arabic and Islamic nations failed their peoples – they are unable to provide the _polished_ societies which can propel their peoples into the new _global village_.  Maybe she or he is right; maybe (most of) the Arab and even Islamic nations are already _failed_, maybe the people in them are, really, raging at fate and the failures of their ancestors – throwing their bombs at the only available targets: us.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2006)

Ralph Peters has made many comments on this topic (read back issues of Parameters, for example), but the population is not throwing bombs at us because we are the only target; their rulers and elites explicitly support and encourage this behaviour in order to externalize the problem and divert people from coming after the *real* source of the problem: right at home.

This isn't unique to Islam, Argentina did it against the UK in the Falkland Islands war, Cuba and now Venezuela routinely blame all their shortcomings on the United States, and there are lots of other examples throughout history.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Feb 2006)

Edward:

Not sure - but it sounds like something that Irshad Manji might have referenced - (a young, female, moderate, Muslim that happens to be Canadian and also happens to be lesbian - I used to find lots of reason to critcise her positions before 9/11 but since then I can only admire her having the courage of her convictions).

With respect to your comment about muslims raging against themselves and their fates, perhaps it's worthwhile reviewing "the seven stages of grief".

1) Shock or Disbelief 
2) Denial
3) Bargaining stage, the person attempts to reconcile the loss by making deals with other people, sometimes also with Deity.
4) Guilt is marked by statements of "if only I had done/been . . . ". 
5) Anger is a natural stage everyone must pass. Anger may be directed toward the loss, the person lost, or even Deity. 
6) Depression is a stage that comes and goes throughout the grief process. Resignation at the end of the depression indicates that the truth of the loss has been accepted and the person is ready to move on.
7) Acceptance and Hope means that you understand your life will never be the same but it will go on with meaning and hope.
http://www.snow.edu/~studentlife/griefloss.html

Assuming this to be a valid natural progression, and assuming events were left to naturally take their course, then Islam's collision with modernity in the 1920's could be expected to result at some time in a guilty, angry, depressed, resentful population making bargains with Allah to do better "next time".  

Eventually they would, in the process of time, accept their situation and decide to do things differently.

However, given their 1300 years of history at or near the "top of the heap", and the suddeness and steepness of the fall, it seems reasonable that the recovery period might be extended.  It is likely to further extended if there are people intent on fostering Anger to direct it for their own ends.

How do you deal with an angry, depressed, "anti-social" patient who is already being attended by a pop psychologist encouraging him to act on his urges?  Beyond separating "psychologist" from "patient"?

Bin Laden as Dr. Phil or Oprah?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (13 Feb 2006)

I recently had a good talk with a college of mine about "tolerance".  He was saying that just by the nature of the word, it suggests that we are tollerating something that we find distasteful.  As far as how the Arab nations run themselves, we are asked to tolerate them.  How about we just "ignore" them.  Not in the security/terrorism sense, but in the "take the cameras home and let them burn flags alone".  That is the only way to deal with a school yard pest.  Ignore them.  
Shore up our borders, give as much as is needed to the intelligence communities to do their jobs, go in and crush these tools when they get too big for their boots ie) nuclear weapons, and then just IGNORE THEM.  I agree with Edward in that the "leaders" of these countries/sects have done a great snow job on their people to distract them from the fact that a theocratically run country is no more viable than the communist ones of yesterday.  Let's leave them be as much as is safe, and let them unravel from within.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Feb 2006)

Unfortunately Zipperhead_Cop, as long as "Film at 11" is the order of the day, and private citizens keep offering themselves as hostages against government advice to travel to these countries, we won't be allowed to ignore them.  I don't think anyway.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (13 Feb 2006)

Yeah, I know.  Bad press sells.  It was just a thought.


----------



## GuloGulo (1 Mar 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Kirkhill, citing Adam Ferguson (1767), spoke of the _”amicable collisions”_ which served to _polish_ society and make our modern, enlightened, peaceful, secular, multicultural and mutually respectful society possible.  But, when two societies collide, if they have not both been _polished_ to roughly the same level by their own series of _amicable collisions_ then it may be that the requisite level of mutual respect and consequential peaceful intercourse is impossible.
> 
> But, consider: suppose the _collision_ between two societies is not _amicable_ at all.  Suppose, rather, that it is, more or less, _tectonic_ – one society is (or is perceived to be) sliding *over* the other, burying the other, in effect.  The collision would be, as the current one is, anything but amicable; tectonic shifts produce earthquakes.
> 
> I noted that a now forgotten commentator suggested that the ongoing, maybe continuous Muslim _rage_ is an acknowledgement that the ‘modern’ Arabic and Islamic nations failed their peoples – they are unable to provide the _polished_ societies which can propel their peoples into the new _global village_.  Maybe she or he is right; maybe (most of) the Arab and even Islamic nations are already _failed_, maybe the people in them are, really, raging at fate and the failures of their ancestors – throwing their bombs at the only available targets: us.



This is incredibly opportunistic.  Islamic conflict is an effect of an ill-advised, and I suspect unthinking, policy of multiculturalism.  Islam is not that unique though, other than the amount of media coverage it gets.  It has been acknowledged that most ethnic minorities, outside of European peoples, are all but impossible to assimilate into the greater society as a whole.  For this reason, Even today, you see enclaves throughout cities and, in consequence, noticeable disproportionality --including dramatic moral differences-- with regards to the varying social groups.  It should be noted that this was known for a very long time. Governments of the past safeguarded against this kind of problematic immigration i.e., the USA's 1921 immigration quota act, or Canada instating a quota on Chinese immigration AFTER world war two.  Which is why they gave up on the "assimilation" ideal and came up with "multi-culturalism".  However, to me, this mandate was little more than a legitimizing of fifth columns, not to mention a policy that, in the end, will only amount to ethnocide.  I don't know how others feel about these radical changes and degeneration of Canadian culture that have been progressing oh-so rapidly since Trudeau.  Which is basically just a Globalist Americanization [which is rooted in American liberalist movments] that is the status quo for most all western countries.  I, for one, am not supportive of it in the least.  As it manifests, in essence, as an assault against the culture that made the country what it was in the first place.  Including, but not limited to in any sense, Islamic related social conflicts.


----------



## raymao (1 Mar 2006)

I wasn't really going to involve myself with political debate on this forum since I am relatively new. But I can see you are as well.

In regards to multi-culturalism. Canada was built on this premise. Three groups of people who came together to form a federation. The Indians were left out of governance in 1867 and is why they are struggling for self-governance now. The French and the English (Europeans who really didn't assimilate well at all by the way, neither did the Spanish... all Europeans) formed the government for our country on the basis that their distinct societies could be protected from one another. That's why the French language needs protection even today.

As far as all this immigration. Well, this is capitalism at it's best. When we globalize our economy, we need to send our people to other places to acquire the best resources while opening our own doors in order to acquire labour and other specialized workers. Those Chinese you mentioned were responsible for building a lot of our railway systems, and the Japanese that so many people complained about earlier in the century are now responsible for employing a lot of Canadians while GM, Ford and Chrysler are employing people in other countries. Without getting into a full blown discussion on macroeconomics I simply want to remind everyone that the people that live in this country came here to adopt our values and beliefs but, they also carry values and beliefs that should be respected. A lot of what we 'tolerate' in this country are ideas, values, and beliefs that have been created or made popular by people born from the lineage that formed the country in the first place. We don't need to agree with it. But we do need to agree we live in a nation made up of different people. It started that way from the beginning. I'll agree to protect that.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Mar 2006)

raymao said:
			
		

> In regards to multi-culturalism. Canada was built on this premise. Three groups of people who came together to form a federation. The Indians were left out of governance in 1867 and is why they are struggling for self-governance now. The French and the English (Europeans who really didn't assimilate well at all by the way, neither did the Spanish... all Europeans) formed the government for our country on the basis that their distinct societies could be protected from one another. That's why the French language needs protection even today.



This is a wildly distorted view of history. The settlers of New France were determined to assimilate the native cultures through religious conversion and attaching their "political" and economic welfare to New France by taking sides in the various native conflicts and employing natives in the fur trade and the military. The British had many of the same motives, and in addition were determined to crush New France as well. The primary reason full assimilation did not take place after the Seven Year's War was the simple fact the British did not have the manpower to do so.

A bit more than one hundred years later, the Fathers of Confederation had to solve a tricky problem; join several disparate political units together and combine their strengths or risk assimilation by the growing United States. Given each colony was suspicious of the motives of the others, it is pretty miraculous that Canada even came into being. 

The fundamental divide is do people share common values, beliefs, mythologies as citizens of a nation, or are they simply "tenants" occupying the same "state". Given the results of States where ethnic nationalism overtakes shared values (from relatively benign like former Czechoslovakia to violent disintegration like former Yugoslavia), I would say it would be in all of our best interests to concentrate on "civic nationalism", the instilling of a common set of values, beliefs and, yes, national myths which override and trump the old values which people bring over from the "old country".


----------



## raymao (1 Mar 2006)

Ok, I see your view. I also agree with your sense of civic nationalism, but I struggle to come to terms with what these values and beliefs we should share?

Let me tell you a bit about myself first. I want to share this with you, because I am almost certain everything I believe in is part of the 'norm' except for how you define values and beliefs of a nation. Born in Montreal. Grew up in Niagara Falls. Speak English and barely any French. In regards to faith (notice I didn't say religion), I am definitely Christian supporting the theory of intelligent design, and I base a majority of personal values and beliefs in the Bible. I am heterosexual. Previously married. A single father with full custody of my little girl.

I don't think I have really noted anything too bad above. I know some people do not believe in divorce though... should I leave? Ok, let's talk about the values and beliefs that exist in our country without even discussing immigration. A lot of the values and beliefs that people have in this country that are descendants of the first 'English' settlers are polar opposites of the simple ones I mentioned of my own. Now what? The only thing I can really agree on, is that the citizens of this country be required to communicate with each other. In my part of Canada, the language is English. In other parts it is French. We've chosen to protect that language in Quebec.

Ok, let's introduce the immigrants... do they make it worse? I don't think so? Western countries have yet to come to terms with ethnic diversity, that's all. In regards to civic nationalism... on what grounds? No state, is truly civic, the United States supposedly has no official language, yet it is virtually impossible to function in American society with no knowledge of the English language, and it is a legal requirement for their children to learn English in school. So on what grounds do we base our values and beliefs. If you don't stand for the 'laws' in our land... well that's something entirely different than what we are debating. Canada has already empowered two ethnic/cultural groups at the expense of all others already by making English and French it's national languages. What more can there be?

I know I can't impose 'my personal' values on everyone else in this country. What values and beliefs are you suggesting? Some people will agree. Some people won't. The people that don't agree with your beliefs and values may not be immigrants at all. No better example of trying to impose values and beliefs can be said than looking at your own family. Can you honestly say everyone in your family share the same beliefs and values? I'm sure your family is no different than mine on those regards. Some think the same, some don't. And I tell ya, I'm not sure if I want to be in a group that shares the exact same beliefs and values. We'd have nothing to debate. What fun would that be?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (1 Mar 2006)

Nobody is saying that anyone who comes to our country has to give up anything.  By all means, come in and have fun.  The point of this thread is that there are immigrants who come here and then DEMAND that things here be changed to suit their likes and dislikes, be it religious or otherwise.  The WASP "We" now are in a position where we have to try to fight to retain OUR culture, like Christmas and Easter.  That is what ranks many, including myself.  "We" have welcomed these people with open arms, and now they are complaining that we didn't hug them hard or long enough.


----------



## raymao (1 Mar 2006)

Ahhh... Christmas and Easter. Yeah, I was more than a little irked about that as well. Not a holiday tree! Got it. I know Boston found that funny with their annual delivery. One of these days, someone will have to write a book about things that 'are' Canadian without excluding other Canadians. Is it possible? Any good ones out there already?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (1 Mar 2006)

raymao said:
			
		

> Ahhh... Christmas and Easter. Yeah, I was more than a little irked about that as well. Not a holiday tree! Got it. I know Boston found that funny with their annual delivery. One of these days, someone will have to write a book about things that 'are' Canadian without excluding other Canadians. Is it possible? Any good ones out there already?



The only thing anyone seems to agree on is the "I AM CANADIAN" series of beer commercials.  Kind of sad, really.


----------



## GuloGulo (1 Mar 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> This is a wildly distorted view of history. The settlers of New France were determined to assimilate the native cultures through religious conversion and attaching their "political" and economic welfare to New France by taking sides in the various native conflicts and employing natives in the fur trade and the military. The British had many of the same motives, and in addition were determined to crush New France as well. The primary reason full assimilation did not take place after the Seven Year's War was the simple fact the British did not have the manpower to do so.
> 
> A bit more than one hundred years later, the Fathers of Confederation had to solve a tricky problem; join several disparate political units together and combine their strengths or risk assimilation by the growing United States. Given each colony was suspicious of the motives of the others, it is pretty miraculous that Canada even came into being.
> 
> The fundamental divide is do people share common values, beliefs, mythologies as citizens of a nation, or are they simply "tenants" occupying the same "state". Given the results of States where ethnic nationalism overtakes shared values (from relatively benign like former Czechoslovakia to violent disintegration like former Yugoslavia), I would say it would be in all of our best interests to concentrate on "civic nationalism", the instilling of a common set of values, beliefs and, yes, national myths which override and trump the old values which people bring over from the "old country".



Absolutely.  That is exactly how I see it as well.  The parallels between modern western societies and the downfall of the roman empire are shockingly similar.  Without "Roman civic duty" and likewise without a native homogeneous roman people, their fate was sealed.  They simply had no one to fight their wars, and because of that they were over run by inferiors from the north.  No doubt this will be the same for the west unless we start acknowledging the "polite fiction" that has been decaying western civilization at alarming levels over the past several decades.  Though it might not be a pleasant discourse, it is imperative.

Though people like to dress up certain things to fit their own agenda.  Like how some many self-hating liberalists argue: "Well Europeans 'immigrated' to Canada, therefore any and all third worlders should be allowed as well."  Which absolutely drives me bonkers, not just the shameless distortion, but also the seemingly inherent  lack of hearing anybody out on anything: totally obstinate while simultaneously being completely unaware of the facts.  Canadians were nativists for a very long time, including the time in which they developed it into becoming  what what it is today.  Even the melting pot rhetoric  [before the surrender to multiculturalism anyways] was also a completely inept proposition, as it was originally coined for the catholic immigrants into the US, whom at that time [75 years ago] were "problematic immigration!". How things change....  I can't get over the fact that this is typical in arguments of people from the "self-hating" righteous liberal school of thought.  Which seems to be completely apart from reality.  For example, I read a news story in which Paul Martin was asked to comment on the murder of the teenage girl in Toronto, to which he  responded by saying the "problem" is that they,  minorities, are forced into this kind of a lifestyle because of discrimination, alienation, disenfranchisement, etc.,  I almost couldn't believe it: him blaming the majority for the crime, but, then I remembered the thousands of cars that were firebombed and the French response, which was in large: "blame the racist majority"....[!] On the other hand there was a news story in which he was asked to comment regarding a vandal attack on a Jewish synagogue, which he declared: The nation is disgusted by this type of crime committed by a terrible thug assailant, and that he wholeheartedly "condemned it with every fiber of his being".  I guess we can assume the vandal wasn't "disenfranchised"???  That or he has more of an affinity to Jewish property than the lives of teenage girls.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (1 Mar 2006)

Paul Martin was a two faced jag off and no one should give him one more second of attention.  Same goes for Chretien and Trudeau for that matter.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Mar 2006)

raymao said:
			
		

> Ok, I see your view. I also agree with your sense of civic nationalism, but I struggle to come to terms with what these values and beliefs we should share?



Civic nationalism is the proposition that everyone is equal at law, that the Sovereign individual may freely express his opinions in public venues (and other sovereign individuals may disagree), that you have the right to order your affairs and dispose of your property in ways which maximize its value to you without causing quantifiable harm to others, and the State exists to safeguard these rights.

Within this construct, you are free to carry out your affairs, Mohamed next door can conduct his, Indira across the street can conduct hers and so on. No one will specify if you should (or should not) have a Christmas tree, join the Freemasons, play rock'n'roll music, cruise the internet, have sex with a willing partner in your bedroom, vote for the Green party, buy your groceries at the corner store or the Big Box retailer....This construct explicitly excludes ideas like "hyphenated" Canadians or preferential treatment based on geography, religion or ethnicity. Sentencing criminals to "aboriginal healing circles" or excusing assault and battery when it is done by an NHL player would be out. Dalton McGuinty's decision to end religious based arbitration in favor of uniform implementation of the Laws of Ontario is one of the few times I agreed with anything he has done.



> I know I can't impose 'my personal' values on everyone else in this country. What values and beliefs are you suggesting? Some people will agree. Some people won't. The people that don't agree with your beliefs and values may not be immigrants at all. No better example of trying to impose values and beliefs can be said than looking at your own family. Can you honestly say everyone in your family share the same beliefs and values? I'm sure your family is no different than mine on those regards. Some think the same, some don't. And I tell ya, I'm not sure if I want to be in a group that shares the exact same beliefs and values. We'd have nothing to debate. What fun would that be?



Civic nationalism does not remove areas where dissent or disagreement are possible, but simply says that we are all Canadians, and as Canadians we will submit to a uniform implementation of the laws to settle our disagreements. Right now, if I was to strike you from behind and break your neck, my sentence would be different from that if an aboriginal person or Todd Bertuzzi did it. You can easily think of many other instances of laws, programs and regulations which are not applied to all Canadians but to favour/disfavor certain groups. In the mean time you are quite free to carry on the debate here. I suggest you look up posts by Edward Campbell in this forum, he is quite eloquent in the description and defence of equality at law which is the basis of civic nationalism.


----------



## raymao (2 Mar 2006)

You are absolutely right that the law is not equal. We like to think that bias does not exist in the eyes of a judge or juror, but we know it can't completely disappear. The system is supposed to be procedurally fair, but that does not it mean it will be substantially fair, there is obviously a difference. But, you also have to agree that the largest inequity that will exist in law and public policy is that the social elite will attempt to influence the government to make sure those policies favour them. This does not always mean majority. This may mean the large corporate structures that feed our economy. If a significant for force can truly be seen in forging values and beliefs, it is this force that continues to influence government most.

It is sad to see a general degradation in values and beliefs all around. But this is a global phenomena. I don't think you can blame one group of people for it, but we definitely have the right to identify the values and beliefs we don't want to lose, and let others know how important these are to us.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Mar 2006)

raymao said:
			
		

> You are absolutely right that the law is not equal. We like to think that bias does not exist in the eyes of a judge or juror, but we know it can't completely disappear. The system is supposed to be procedurally fair, but that does not it mean it will be substantially fair, there is obviously a difference. But, you also have to agree that the largest inequity that will exist in law and public policy is that the social elite will attempt to influence the government to make sure those policies favour them. This does not always mean majority. This may mean the large corporate structures that feed our economy. If a significant for force can truly be seen in forging values and beliefs, it is this force that continues to influence government most.



I see my point was slightly missed. It is true that laws are administered by failable humans, and there will be bias, that cannot be helped. What I was getting at was the systematic addition of bias by the State, with the creation of laws, programs and regulations which do not even *pretend* to be neutral. What sort of "Equality at Law" is being provided if you get differential treatment because you live in a particular geographic region, are of a different religious or ethnic background, sex, etc?

I would preffer the imperfect application of Law which applies to everyone regardless of circumstance to the perfect application of differential laws. Of course we have the imperfect application of differential laws, which is only a few steps short of arbitrary application of laws.


----------



## big bad john (2 Mar 2006)

I thought that this article in yesterdays Ottawa Citizen was interesting.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=455b97a8-6e5b-4720-bde4-2b5113fa4bc3&k=85594

Make immigrants take oath of loyalty
report: If newcomers breach Canada's values, they should be deported, ex-diplomat declares  
Article Tools
    Printer friendly
  E-mail
  Font: * * * *  Stewart Bell, The National Post
Published: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 
TORONTO - The federal government should require new immigrants to take an oath of loyalty to Canada and its values -- and deport them if they breach it, a former diplomat says in a study of counter-terrorism policies released yesterday.

The Fraser Institute report, authored by former senior Foreign Affairs official Martin Collacott, also says the government must give special attention to working with the Muslim community since radical Islamic terrorists are currently the greatest danger to Canada's security.

While Canadians are committed to welcoming diverse immigrants from around the world, newcomers must understand that they are expected to accept core Canadian values, the report says.

"If they find such acceptance difficult, they should not come here in the first place," Mr. Collacott writes in Canada's Inadequate Response to Terrorism: The Need for Policy Reform.

The paper proposes that those who apply to immigrate to Canada should be told "what is expected of them and that, if they fail to live up to our expectations, they will be removed from Canada."

In addition, before becoming citizens, immigrants should be required to take an oath "swearing that they are not only fully committed to Canadian values and will give their complete allegiance and loyalty to Canada, but that their actions in the future will reflect these commitments."

Those who behave in a manner that seriously conflicts with Canada's principles -- for example by supporting or engaging in terrorism -- should lose their citizenship, he argues.

But University of Toronto associate professor of law Audrey Macklin, an immigration and refugee law specialist, has doubts about the proposal, which she called "odd."

"To be judged according to your compliance with Canadian values and to strip somebody of citizenship on that basis is a kind of ironic move," she said.

"You are really in a sense acting outside law allegedly because people don't honour Canadian values. Well I think the rule of law is a Canadian value, so I think it would be a very odd thing to do."

The recommendation to the new Conservative government comes as Europe and North America are struggling over how to deal with anti-western, pro-terrorist extremist elements within their Muslim communities.

The government's failure to ensure immigrants are fully committed to living according to Canada's liberal democratic values explains why some put overseas causes ahead of Canadian interests, the paper says.

"Greater emphasis has been given in recent years to the rights of newcomers than to their obligations to Canada," Mr. Collacott writes.

"This has in all likelihood been a contributing factor in encouraging them to treat this country as a convenient and generous base from which to engage in or mount support for their favourite conflicts abroad."

Following last July's suicide bombings in London by British-born Muslims, the British government introduced measures to crack down on the incitement and glorification of terrorism.

Germany is also attempting to screen new immigrants for extremist views, while in Australia last week, Prime Minister John Howard said he was concerned that some parts of the Muslim community were "utterly antagonistic" to Australian society.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Mar 2006)

Don't we already have an oath of citizenship?


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (2 Mar 2006)

The problem with fighting extremist organizations in Canada has everything to do with the political process in Canada.  Half of the groups that CSIS wants to put on the list of supporters of international terrorism cannot be so listed because their lobby groups have bought dozens of seats for the major political parties.  As long as ethnic special intrest groups are able to contribute heavily to political campains, and are courted by candidates seeking to lock up the ethnic vote in their ridings, then the organizations that fundraise and recruit for front line terror groups will continue to operate with impunity in Canada.   In a minority govt situation, it is hard to get a PM with the balls to listen to his law enforcement and intelligence briefings and blacklist the organizations that we all know are opperating in this country to support terrorism in their homelands.  Of course, when the Liberals had a towering majority, they never had the balls to risk offending any cultural or ethnic group by targeting the terrorists that sit so smugly in their midst.   Likewise, any crackdown on recent immigrants will result in headlines and rallies, and storms of phonecalls to those ethnic-dependant MP's, and a wobble in the oppinion polls that brings all Canadian politicians to their knees.  It doesn't matter what laws we have, our govt lacks the will to enforce any unpopular ones.


----------



## GuloGulo (3 Mar 2006)

I misread _civic nationalism _ as being an effect rather than a means. My take is that this sense of civic duty, is, as it's being pursued now, delusive.  One problem is that people from different ethnic backgrounds, like it or not, tend to alienate one another, and because of this many people immigrate with "strings attached".  Expecting all  Immigrants to "smelt" into their new countries culture within a generation or two is absurd, I would say naive but I don't even think naivety has anything to do with it, since this was common knowledge and had been for years. One example that comes to mind is the creation of the 'pale of settlement' in Russia.  So there's the rub, and is why "multiculturalism" came into being.  Which is just as problematic.  It only depreciates those valuable citizens that feel strongly about their nation, and are willing to step up when need be.  Do you think anybody is going to want to die on a French beach for "multiculturalism"? which in some cases manifests as bullet ridden young girls. Furthermore, do you think the Men that did die in France did it so Canada could become what it has evolved into since Trudeau? From my perspective, the answer is no.  One hypothetical question to ask yourself would be: If there was an Invasion of Canada by some hypothetical hostile state [Be it Islamic, Jewish, Asian, etc.,] do you think the immigrant representatives of that state would overwhelmingly fight for Canada, or against Canada? I bet most, if asked, in some type poll would give you the answer you want to hear, but I believe the reality would be the opposite, since, I myself can empathize with that hypothetical.  Which is, by definition, a fifth column,  and it really makes me wonder wonder sometimes what true agenda these bureaucrats and politicians have when instating these policy changes, when in many instances they are offensive and are by no means representative of the Canadian people. [i.e., today the Supreme court passed, with overwhelming support, a law which made it legal for Sikh children in school to carry daggers, even though last night I saw an opinion poll where 95+ of the people asked said they were AGAINST such a law.]

Liberalists may be ashamed of their heritage, but I am not, and for that matter I don't think most people are, or at least wouldn't if it hasn't been for all the "peer pressure" I guess you could call it. Or at least the superficial appearance of consensus.  Which is why I think these policy's are ticking time bombs because I don't think they are in the best interests of  the majority, rather, in the best interests for the minorities that have made Canada "multicultural". 

Like it or not, people identify with things more specific than  "mankind",  [i.e., religion, race, culture] and it seems to have a socially healthy society this idea would have to be acknowledged.  Civic nationalism it seems is completely in vain, no matter what the politicians say. Like the ones that put the blame of the Toronto gang killing on the shoulders of the "racist" majority and gun laws.   It seems people accept these kind of explanations all to easily.  Someone should ask why these "disenfranchised" lowly people didn't for example ...Join the Army!  You can't possibly get anymore enfranchised than that, can you?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Mar 2006)

GuloGulo said:
			
		

> and it really makes me *wonder wonder sometimes what true agenda these bureaucrats and politicians have when instating these policy changes*, when in many instances they are offensive and are by no means representative of the Canadian people. [i.e., today the Supreme court passed, with overwhelming support, a law which made it legal for Sikh children in school to carry daggers, even though last night I saw an opinion poll where 95+ of the people asked said they were AGAINST such a law.]



Show up for six years minimum, make great business connecitions, collect a full tax free pension, get hired as a consultant to a company (that you gave under the table breaks to) for a six figure salary.  As much as it cuts my heart in half to say it, the only parties that field candadates that appear to give a crap about people are the ones on our political left.  
I'm not too ramped up about the kirpan issue.  That was a big deal in Toronto in 1983 or so and it seems like it has never been much of a problem.  
Just as a religious aside:

*The scholar Jit Singh Uberoi has persuasively argued that the kirpan should be viewed as being constrained by thekara or steel bangle, and it follows, as he says, that the kirpan is "a sword ritually constrained and thus made into the mark of every citizen's honour, not only of the soldier's vocation."[1] A sword that is "ritually constrained" is a sword that is bound to do only the work of justice, to be drawn on behalf of the oppressed and the weak, to be offered only in defense. The sword can be employed only when all other avenues have been explored and exhausted, and indeed failure to do so at that time would be tantamount to complicity in acts of evil and oppression*

But of course anything that can be used can be misused.


----------



## GO!!! (4 Mar 2006)

In accordance with my cultural beliefs and upbrining, I demand to be permitted to wear a kilt, dirk and two handed claymore - to school work and anywhere else.

C'mon - I promise to put a small leather strap accross the hilt....


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> In accordance with my cultural beliefs and upbrining, I demand to be permitted to wear a kilt, dirk and two handed claymore - to school work and anywhere else.
> 
> C'mon - I promise to put a small leather strap accross the hilt....



You forgot the real hair sporran, holding a wee dram of scotch... ;D


----------



## GO!!! (4 Mar 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> You forgot the real hair sporran, holding a wee dram of scotch... ;D



I use baby seal fur - very soft and supple, and cheap too, since the Europeans eschew it!

Now if only I could find some real ivory drones...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Mar 2006)

I know a guy...got some great deals on powdered bear spleens too.  
I for one will be sending my kids to school with a nice skean dhu in their socks, but for certain they will have a metallic foil "band" over the end that will say "Break only in cases of injustice".


----------



## raymao (5 Mar 2006)

GuloGulo said:
			
		

> Expecting all  Immigrants to "smelt" into their new countries culture within a generation or two is absurd, I would say naive but I don't even think naivety has anything to do with it, since this was common knowledge and had been for years.



You should rethink this comment and avoid absolute generalisms. Am I first or second generation being born in this country? Regardless, my mother being born in the Philippines and my father in Guyana South America... I have hardly any knowledge of their culture except for the fact that I grew up eating rice nearly every day instead of French fries or mashed potatoes with my roast beef, chicken or whatever else we ate for dinner. The only thing that makes me different from the majority of Canadians is my background. Nothing that I can control, change or even connect with. What would I fight for? My home, my family, my friends... this basically makes for the most important things about my country. It is the only thing that I am connected with. Would I fight alongside Filipinos or Guyanese? Not against my brethren. Not now. Not ever.

I asked the question in an earlier post, what values and beliefs do real Canadians have? I posted some of the ones I believe in, and I'm sure many of you share them. But... if real Canadians in the view of many of you require a lineage that links back to the U.K. or a European ethnicity with what some of you determine to be similar enough, then you exclude real Canadians like myself.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Mar 2006)

It's not the lineage raymao.  It's the beliefs.

I grew up alongside many Brits that were not British and also have known Canadians, West Indians, Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese and Malays that were.

I tend to believe that Britain left Canada a legacy of beliefs and institutions that have given it many of its current advantages.  As such they are worth retaining and defending.

Cheers.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (6 Mar 2006)

raymao said:
			
		

> I asked the question in an earlier post, what values and beliefs do real Canadians have? I posted some of the ones I believe in, and I'm sure many of you share them. But... if real Canadians in the view of many of you require a lineage that links back to the U.K. or a European ethnicity with what some of you determine to be similar enough, then you exclude real Canadians like myself.



      What values make a real Canadian?  Tolerance for the religion and culture and neighbor, and the corollary expectation that your own will be respected by them.  Expectation that all people will be treated the same regardless of race, creed, colour or orientation at their conduct and achievements warrent.  Lastly, the expectation that you will conduct yourself as a Canadian, rather than a foreigner living under a flag of convenience to better prosecute a war in a country you have abandoned.  One of my closest buddies in the Regiment was born a Filipino, and his father was an officer in the Philippine army, I remember he was sitting beside my own father, each of them prouder than you could believe as their sons together paraded at the end of Basic training as Canadian soldiers.  
      I remember getting into trouble in school when we had multicultural week, and they wanted us to talk about what culture we were, and I said Canadian.  The teachers seemed to think that this was not possible, that I had to have a hyphen of my own.  Was I German, Polish, Irish, English, French etc, actually most of my descent is Scottish, but I was born and raised Canadian, I was not raised to speak the Gaelic, I was not raised in the culture of the Scots, I speak English and a little French.  I play hockey, I curl, I hunt, I swim and canoe, I learned lacrosse from the Natives, and know more of their mythology than I do of the Celtic that is my supposed heritage.  Like the beer commercial says, I am Canadian (no hyphen required).


----------



## raymao (6 Mar 2006)

Thank you mainerjohnthomas. This is the way I feel as well. I cannot connect with any other culture than that of a Canadian. I do not fly flags of other nations. I have heard some stories while growing up about my parent's description of what it was for them to grow up, but they made their experiences 'foreign' to me, as they always imparted that our experiences would be different being born in Canada. One thing was always instilled into us. We are Canadians, nothing else. We can tell people about our parents that came from different nations, but our association with those nations are strictly through our parents. Our parents told us, that if we always remember this, then no one, could ever try and claim we are less Canadian. And, trust me, we're not less Canadian in any way.

When I told my parents I was considering a career in the military, they gave me their support. Did they do this, because they are proud their son will become a soldier? Probably not, having preached about peace, and always being kind to your fellow man, I'm sure this is not the reason why. They were supportive because they understand the role that Canadians play on a global scale, and the manner in which the rest of the world look at Canadians. They understand, especially hearing news of late, that there are distinct possibilities I may come in harms way. But they also understand, that Canada would never send their troops into harm's way for a cause that would not be worth fighting for.

In regards to Kirkhill, yes the British are responsible for the core of what Canada has become. Yes they have a great legacy, and I'm sure my parents had been imparted with that knowledge long before they even came to Canada. My father had a British passport in 1964 coming into Canada from Guyana. But, without disrespect for the good they have done, there are plenty of things that the British have done that would rather be forgotten. The Brits' introduced beliefs and institutions into our history, but I'd like to think Canada kept the best qualities and improved on the rest. If you call what we have Canadian, I agree and support. If you mention some other nation in your praise of this nation, I look at you a little differently. This does not mean I don't appreciate the history. But, history is no where as significant as the present.

In regards to nations I can attribute to in my bloodlines with my parents coming from Guyana and the Philippines, there is Holland, India, China, and Spain. My daughter can add Britain, France and Germany to that list. Can you imagine the confusion in allegiance if we didn't associate ourselves as being only Canadian.

p.s. mainerjohnthomas, my mother's side of the family in the Philippines has a few members active in their military. Most notably is my first cousin Jessie Dellosa. You can find his name on Google, in March of 2002 he lead 60 elite Philippine Scout Rangers against 20 members of the Abu Sayyaf group, linked to the international al-Qaida network. He was a Colonel back then, but we have heard that he has now attained the rank of General in the Philippines.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2006)

raymao:

Canada is Canada and I am a Canadian.  However I cannot forget where I was born nor from who I came.  I admit I am particularly touchy on this issue as, while a great amount of effort has been made to make other newcomers welcome to Canada, I as a Brit in this country was given ample opportunity to reflect on the evils of my ancestors I was given fewer opportunities to appreciate the advantages that they left behind, not least of which was a population that was open to newcomers and tolerant of their beliefs.


----------



## raymao (6 Mar 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> raymao:
> I admit I am particularly touchy on this issue as, while a great amount of effort has been made to make other newcomers welcome to Canada, I as a Brit in this country was given ample opportunity to reflect on the evils of my ancestors I was given fewer opportunities to appreciate the advantages that they left behind, not least of which was a population that was open to newcomers and tolerant of their beliefs.



Since you are a Brit in this country, I am sorry you feel like you were not given an opportunity that allowed you to appreciate the advantages your ancestors left behind. I was born in this country, and when I was 5 years old I remember travelling overseas with my parents. I can remember foreigners associating my Canadian birth with British ties as far back as then. Going to public school in Canada, I remember ample courses on the forging nations that created Canada, and Britain was number one. I look around me today, and I find many of Canada's protected historic landmarks to be filled with British history and influence. The laws we discuss in universities and the business ties we speak of most often are either related with America or the UK, our media's focus on events that occur in Britain on a daily basis. I'm sorry. I just can't see how this could happen with you, nor can I understand newcomers missing these crucial matters when considering Canada as a place they wish to immigrate to. I'm not sure exactly what the process may be for immigration since I was born here and have no desires of immigrating anywhere, but I would imagine, when someone has the desire to leave their country of birth they probably learn a lot about the country they wish to move to. I don't think they simply reach into a hat and leave for that country the next morning.

Remember, I support many of the ideas of protecting what is Canadian. I simply wanted you to identify what being a Canadian is all about. Just this morning I was joking with one of my roomates, I told him he could use the ladle for the soup that I had left on the counter. He looked at me funny, and said, "ladle?" and I responded, "yes, ladle... what do you call it?" He replied back with a surprising answer, "I just call it what I call it in my own language." I started laughing, and in my best East Indian accent I responded, "welcome to Canada."

There is nothing wrong with not forgetting where you 'come' from. It is a different story all together when you think where you came from has more significance than where someone else came from. Your origins may have had greater contributions than the origins of others but in no way reflects your 'own' contribution. This takes on an entirely different role for those that wear a uniform that represents our national mandate. For all of those that serve in the armed forces, they no longer represent individuals, instead they represent a nation of people. This is entirely different. All people have to respect what is Canadian. Let me be the first one to tell any new newcomer... they can go back to wherever they came from if they feel any different. Just make sure your concept of what is Canadian, truly reflects our country.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Oct 2009)

I am resurrecting a very old thread because I think this opinion piece, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, fits better here than in newer threads:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/why-are-islamic-extremists-obsessed-with-female-bodies/article1341218/


> Why are Islamic extremists obsessed with female bodies?
> *Fanatics view women as objects - of pleasure, temptation and sin - and use strictness toward them as an easy form of religious struggle*
> 
> Alaa Al Aswany
> ...




I’m not sure that I agree with  Alaa that this is all _” Wahhabi extremism”_. I believe many of these values, which predate Islam itself, are part and parcel of *modern* Arab/Persian/West Asian *culture*.







Reuters/Intellasia.net
You will see many veiled women in Malaysia and Indonesia, but ...





Malaysia Airlines
Not all women, not even all Muslim women, are veiled all the time.

(I understand that the pressures, from _Arabist_ Islamic ‘scholars’ is forcing more and more Asian women into _hijabs_, and worse, but this is because Asian men fail to stand up for their women in the face of an _alien_, less _enlightened_ culture.)

The other point where I disagree with Al Aswany is that _”religious extremism is the other face of political despotism. We cannot get rid of the extremism before we end the despotism. Democracy is the solution.”_ That’s wishful thinking. I agree that religious extremism finds fertile grounds is despotic countries but, as we can see in Asia, it can spread in democracies, like Malaysia, too. In fact the reverse might be true: religious extremism might rise in a weak democracy and, left to their own devices, people who are true *believers* might do away with democracy in favour of a theocracy – that was the _apprehended_ result of the Algerian elections in 1992. Only a military coup _restored_ electoral democracy.

But, my point, going back to my entry into this thread some three and a half years ago, is that one of our *V*alues is _equality_. While we accept Islam and we _tolerate_ many Arabic/Persian/West Asian cultural norms, customs, some, like requiring women to wear head to toe burkas, are antithetical to our basic, core, *liberal* values because they reek of inequality and worse: they suggest that women are property – slaves.

The problem is not Islam, it is, partially, some interpretations of Islam that are based on Arab/Persian *cultural* customs that we abandoned, almost completely, in the middle ages.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Oct 2009)

...in a statement issued by the Muslim Canadian Congress, "a grassroots organization that provides a voice to Muslims who are not represented by existing organizations; organizations that are either sectarian or ethnocentric, largely authoritarian, and influenced by a fear of modernity and an aversion to joy":


> The Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC) is asking Ottawa to introduce legislation to ban the wearing of masks, niqabs and the burka in all public dealings.
> 
> In a statement, the MCC said, not only is the wearing of a face-mask a security hazard and has led to a number of bank heists in Canada and overseas, the burka or niqab are political symbols of Saudi inspired Islamic extremism.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Nov 2009)

This isn’t about _extremist_ groups or _ideology_, as such, but it is about _civic nationalism_ or, perhaps, about _civilization_ itself. Every time we tell ourselves that we are trying to bring something or other *to* Afghanistan we should read this article, by Christie Blatchford, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, which tells us that the ‘something or other’ is needed here, too:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/a-brutal-death-and-the-silence-that-follows/article1349095/



> A brutal death, and the silence that follows
> The headline in the print edition is:
> Horrific killing of teen mid-town Toronto was a scene out of Kandahar
> 
> ...




It appears to me that in (many? some? just a few?) parts of urban Canada we have a new, transplanted, *culture* that rejects ‘law and order’ and the value of work and _civic nationalism_, itself, and embraces violent, dog-eat-dog, _beggar take the hindmost_ ethics - which is tolerated *excused* by the ‘mainstream’ because the perpetrators and most victims are from _minority_ ‘communities.’

Of course we should not excuse or even tolerate what goes on; it is not *civilized* – the level of *barbarism* may not be as high as Kandahar but that’s not the point. The point is that *barbarism* ought must not be allowed to take root in Canada, at all. We all, governments, police, and _ordinary_ Canadians like you and me should be outraged but I fear we will shrug and go on to the next page of the paper. That’s how *barbarism* takes root and thrives.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Nov 2009)

Sorry Edward, but barbarism is already here and it's  bad, and like you yourself said in another thread when I suggested we need dirt bags like this to "disappear ", that the notion of doing that "upsets your sensibilities".

Outrage all you want but........


----------



## mariomike (4 Nov 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We all, governments, police, and _ordinary_ Canadians like you and me should be outraged but I fear we will shrug and go on to the next page of the paper. That’s how *barbarism* takes root and thrives.



Perhaps sheeple figure as long as it's one group of recidivists killing each other? What was it Martin Niemöller said?
This took place on Grenoble Drive. Not sure if you are familiar with the vicinity.


----------



## Danjanou (4 Nov 2009)

For those who don’t live in the Centre of the Universe, the street is located in Flemingdon Park an lovely  nest of public housing hi-rises and cul de sacs off the Don River. 

http://www.google.ca/mapdata?CxUOC5sCHa2HRfsgIQwtDgubAjWth0X7QI4CSLkBUgJDQZABAsoBAmVu

Some lovely stats form the City’s own website for you to digest

http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/pdf/priority2006/area_flemingdon_full.pdf

I draw your attention to the youth unemployment numbers, the numbers of single patent families, the percentage of the total population under 30 in the area, and the percentage of recent arrivals and/or visible minorities. Not that any of this is of course related. Everything here is just peachy so says our esteemed leader.  :


----------



## Shec (4 Nov 2009)

Not saying this should be excused however neither is it a new phenomenon.  Every 1st generation immigrant group has experienced this over the years, it's a characteristic of the immigrant experience.  Perhaps the most profound illustration of this is the Broadway hit from the 50's & 60's _West Side Story_.

Perhaps what is needed, among other things,  is an education system rooted in a singular, integrated, unified Canadian culture and a return to the study of Canada's history; not that of whichever sh**hole you or your parents fled.  More proof that multi-culturalism is a failed policy.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Nov 2009)

Shec said:
			
		

> Not saying this should be excused however neither is it a new phenomenon.  Every 1st generation immigrant group has experienced this over the years, it's a characteristic of the immigrant experience.  Perhaps the most profound illustration of this is the Broadway hit from the 50's & 60's _West Side Story_.



Shakespeare had many profound insights into the human condition, but "Romeo and Juliette" (the basis for "West Side Story") probably isn't the one to go to for that. 



> Perhaps what is needed, among other things,  is an education system rooted in a singular, integrated, unified Canadian culture and a return to the study of Canada's history; not that of whichever sh**hole you or your parents fled.  More proof that multi-culturalism is a failed policy.



Hear Hear!


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Nov 2009)

Looking back at the Christie Blatchford story and then at the City of Toronto data Danjanou posted, I'm guessing that 10% of the district population is the problem - this problem, anyway.

the _cultural values_ of the majority are, probably, 'good' - about what we expect from recent immigrants who want to get ahead. But 10% pf the population - one, but only one of the _visible minority_ groups - has 'poor,' indeed *unacceptable* cultural values.

While I still remain opposed to draconian methods I do agree that we need to:

1. *Reform* the education system so that it instills a set of common, _national_ cultural values;

2. *Stop* excusing bad behavious and bad socio-economic choices;

3. *Stop* rewarding those bad choices; and

4. *Punish* ALL bad conduct in an exemplary manner.


----------



## Danjanou (4 Nov 2009)

Yup 10-20% and that appears to be the norm in every ]high rise ghetto, er excuse me high density public housing project in the GTA. Those numbers BTW are probably jigged a bit to present a more positive spin on things. :

First hand experience shows me that the majority of our newer citizens irregardless of where they come from are often just trying to get on with their lives and build something better for their children. Not too different than your or my ancestors who came over from the old country(s) for whatever reason. To be honest not all specific groups are equal in that 20/80 or 10/90 split mind.

The vocal minority whiter it be the above noted thugs or those who demand our generous safety net but refuse to embrace and enhance our mosaic and spend there energy on creating little government sanctioned and sponsored middle class liberal guilt driven mini apartheid's (often for their own benefit) are the problem.

In the case of the thugs, its easy for them to bully and intimidate their elderly neighbours, isolated by language, culture, and unfortunately used to being threatened, intimidated, and extorted, because that was the norm in whatever place it was they fled from. 

The same often applies to the "self appointed" community leaders, although their weapons are a bit more subtle.

Your ideas on dealing with it are sound, sadly I don't see it happening.

Besides to use the Afghanistan model again and paraphrase Bruce, before you send in the social workers and teachers you need to make the area safe first. We don't send in the PRTs CIMIC, assorted NGOS and aid workers into the wilds of Kandahar or Helmond before we send the in the boys whose job it is to “close with and destroy the enemy.”


----------



## Larkvall (4 Nov 2009)

Flemington Park is a prime example of poor city planning. Unfortunately, it is not the only screwup in Toronto.


----------



## mariomike (4 Nov 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 4. *Punish* ALL bad conduct in an exemplary manner.



Up to, and including, with Extreme Prejudice.


----------



## mariomike (4 Nov 2009)

Larkvall said:
			
		

> Flemington Park is a prime example of poor city planning. Unfortunately, it is not the only screwup in Toronto.



I guess they all started out with good intentions. Regent Park was considered to be Canada's public housing model back in the 1950's. There was always controversy with Flemingdon Park. Take a look at St James Town, downtown. Certainly the most densely populated community in Canada, and perhaps North America.


----------



## Danjanou (4 Nov 2009)

Actually Jamestown ranks as the second most densly populated area in the world after some areas of Hong Kong/Kowloon. I think it may lead if only public housing is the only criteria.

It was built to replace "Regent" (planed and built in the 1940's BTW) in the 1960's along with similar later projects in the 1970's such as Flemingdon, Jane/Finch, Cresent Town, Little Mogadishu in Etobicoke etc. Just as in Regent they failed to get it right again, and now add in 40-50 year old poorly designed cheaply built buildings with minimal maintenace and no funds to repair/replace. 

These of course replaced the 19th early 20th century "slums" of Kennsington, Cabbagetown, and Corktown, seen the house prices there now?

The only neighbourhood that seems to have worked is St Lawrence. They're trying to recreate that with the mulit billion dollar decades long Regent Park Development project. So far it's woring but I have confidence some high priced moron at Havana on Queen St will upgefuck it soon.


----------



## mariomike (4 Nov 2009)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Little Mogadishu in Etobicoke



320, 330 and 340 Dixon Rd.
Gosh how I miss being sent into those places. Not!  :rofl:


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Nov 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> While I still remain opposed to draconian methods I do agree that we need to:
> 
> 1. *Reform* the education system so that it instills a set of common, _national_ cultural values;
> 
> ...



Capital ideas.  And how do you propose those given the other massive failed social experiment, The Charter, precludes everyone in the country from being responsible for their actions?  How does one manage society when legions of liberal judges allow all manner of atrocities to occur?  How does one get a national identity when the multiculturalism act allows some of the animals to be a little more equal?  

And before we get too wrapped up trying to help these "communites in crisis" let's bear in mind that (especially in the GTA) this is what they _worked_ for.  Clayton Ruby and his band of asses WORKED VERY HARD for a lawless society.  Who are we to liberate them from it?  HUNDREDS of people saw that kid get mauled and did NOTHING! They are just as culpable for what happened as the ones who killed him.  You want police to help sort out your idiot lives?  Call us.  Talk to us.  Cooperate with us.  Show up to court.  Or piss of and solve your own problems.  But spare us the Grade 8 grad photo for the paper and think that any of the rest of us gives two flying shits that your gang banger wanna-be got whacked being a gangsta apprentice.  

This country, vis-a-vis Western culture, is doomed.  If we can't manage one massive national collective rectal/cranial inversion correction, we are screwed.  People better get a little scared about where things are going and realize we get the society we deserve.  This nice guy bullshit isn't getting us anywhere, and there are massive swaths of arseholes that just see this country as a bunch of suckers.  
Wake the hell up people.  
[/rant]


----------



## X-mo-1979 (7 Nov 2009)

Well said.
Unfortunately you are now spreading hate,and as a police officer you will most likely lose your job once the CHRC tracks you down. 

However the rest of average Canada agree's with you.Which doesnt matter,as a liberal lawyer is getting his pay check defending this as a way of life or something.

These people also dont care about bringing life into the world in poor conditions.You know how we sit and question the finances for the future if we have baby number two?They just see 200 bucks a month check to support babies.

Hence why we lose a solid safe way of life in the long run.

I think I'm classified as a racist now too....


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Nov 2009)

Heh.  Yeah, I should just turn in my badge now.
At such time as trying to spread common sense is spreading hate, we're all pretty much summed up.  
And you being sick of our time wasting, weakness creating welfare system isn't being racist.  There is WAY too much white trash being a drain on the system to think that it's an ethnic issue.  I think you're okay.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (7 Nov 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Heh.  Yeah, I should just turn in my badge now.
> At such time as trying to spread common sense is spreading hate, we're all pretty much summed up.
> And you being sick of our time wasting, weakness creating welfare system isn't being racist.  There is WAY too much white trash being a drain on the system to think that it's an ethnic issue.  I think you're okay.



I agree.I don't like where our country or western civilization is heading one bit.I always convince myself I will never read the CBC comments on articles I peruse...yet I do.Which puts me into fits of rage.These people ARE our society.

I have two boys under 5,and honestly I am scared to think what Canada will look like by the time they are my age.


----------



## Antoine (7 Nov 2009)

Now, I have started to ask students to speak English during the lab that I am teaching. Many students looked at me as I was coming from another planet.

At least I got the support of one senior professor after a student went to complain to her. However, I doubt that all professors and other of my fellows agree with me. Probably many see me as a racist French Canadian which is not true as I am not asking them to be white, but just to use one of our official language in a public institution which turns out to be also a learning centre (University).

Makes me sad.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Nov 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I agree.I don't like where our country or western civilization is heading one bit.I always convince myself I will never read the CBC comments on articles I peruse...yet I do.Which puts me into fits of rage.These people ARE our society.
> 
> I have two boys under 5,and honestly I am scared to think what Canada will look like by the time they are my age.



And on that note, I will shamelessly plug a new thread I started for just this topic.


----------



## mariomike (7 Nov 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I have two boys under 5,and honestly I am scared to think what Canada will look like by the time they are my age.



I think that's all any of us really care about.


----------



## mariomike (7 Nov 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> This nice guy bullshit isn't getting us anywhere, and there are massive swaths of arseholes that just see this country as a bunch of suckers.
> Wake the hell up people.



"This is paradise, I'm tellin' ya. This town like a great big puxxy just waitin to get fuxxed." - Tony Montana


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2009)

We have drifted well off topic because we cannot ask or tell native born Canadians to ‘respect our values of leave,’ but ...

This story is second hand but I am pretty certain it is fairly accurate and distressingly common. It is told by a young woman who is an engineering student in a major Canadian university.



> The family– _*great* grandparents_ with some children, including _grandmother_ - arrived in Canada, from the Caribbean, around 1960. _Grandmother_ was a schoolgirl but she found school more difficult in Canada and she made some poor, but, _circa_ 1965, not uncommon choices. Before the end of the decade _grandma_ was a single mother, twice over and living on welfare, in public housing, in one of those projects Danjanou described, above, because _great grandparents_, hardworking, conservative, upright people threw her out for quitting school and getting pregnant.*
> 
> One of the children was _mother_ who stayed in the public housing and made equally bad choice and was, herself, an undereducated, unwed mother by the mid ‘80s.
> 
> ...


_

I agree with her!

*Our* decision to excuse ‘bad choices’ when they are made by e.g. visible minorities does not help. In fact, it contributes to the continuing infantilization of selected minorities which is a counter-productive process for them and “us.” Having excused and even ‘rewarded’ bad choices we then fail to provide a way out. Welfare, as currently constructed in most provinces, as far as I know, enforces continual dependency by *punishing* paid work. There is an old saying that when one is in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging. But what "we" do with welfare is to keep tossing down more shovels.

One other ‘observation:’ a few days ago while I was on the campus of one of our major universities I wandered down to one of its centres, grabbed a bench, and watched and counted. I counted until I had seen 300 people who looked like students – it didn’t take long in the afternoon. Most, barely, appeared to be white, but (possibly because I was near one of the major applied science because) there were very nearly as many who appeared  to be East or South Asians; there were quite a few who appeared to be of Middle Eastern ethnicity. In all these groups (whites, Asians, Middle Easterners) there seemed to be about an even split between young men and women. There were quite a few black people, too, more than their fair share based on recent census data (2.5% of people self-identified as ‘black’ in the 2006 census). But there was one startling difference: they were almost all young women – maybe by a ration of 4:1. I discussed with an acquaintance who is a professor at that university and he guesstimated that my unscientific sample was about right – but his classes are in a humanities faculty so he reckons he sees more whites because, he guesses, they either self-select out of or are less competitive in the science and engineering faculties because the work is much more intensive.

  
--------------------
* An old girlfriend – back in the days of this story and when the *pill* was new – used to say that “any pill, even an aspirin,  will keep a girl our of ‘trouble’ – as long as she keeps it clasped, firmly, between here knees!” Girls she said “don’t just *get* pregnant, as if by magic; they make a choice.”


Edit: typo

Edit: forgot a whole damned word!   :-[_


----------



## mariomike (7 Nov 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> * An old girlfriend – back in the days of this story and when the *pill* was new – used to say that _“any pill, even an aspirin,  will keep a girl our of ‘trouble’ – as long as keeps it clasped, firmly, between here knees!”_ Girls she said _“don’t just *get* pregnant, as if by magic; they make a choice.”_



I remember that story. Also the one about teenage daughters replacing Mom's birth control pills with baby aspirins!  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2009)

The problem with saying "respect our values or leave" is that we – the big Canadian “we” – do not know what our values are, and we – the much smaller, _traditional_ Canadian “we” – do not want to open the issue lest we are accused of being some sort of an unpleasant _ist_.

But we – a large, multi-ethnic Canadian “we” – DO have some values:

First: We are peoples of the _*enlightenments*_ and the two three great _gifts_ of the enlightenment are –

•	Classical English _liberalism_ – which *requires* the state and the sovereign to protect the *sovereign individual* from the depredations of all _collectives_ including churches, mosques, temples and synagogues and the state itself;

•   Confucian _conservatism_ from which we learn the value of filial responsibility, respect for achievement and for _community_ rather than collective values; and

•	Responsible and representative _democracy_ – which is managed through universal suffrage.

Second: We are a *secular society*. While we respect religious beliefs and while we tolerate most religious practices – with some sensible limitations – we believe that religion is an entirely private matter between each individual and his god.

Third: We have a *history* of our own. It is the history of this place and of all those who came here and shaped and reshaped it, and all of those who left here (so many in military uniforms) to shape and reshape the world. It is not aboriginal or French or English or any other history – it is the history of Canada. It is not particularist: aboriginals did not contribute *more* than did, say, the Scots factors or the Chinese labourers; men did not do more than women; whites did not do more than aboriginals – Canadians made this place what it is and then they helped remake the world. And they still go on reshaping Canada. We know that the history of Iran is just as _great_ as that of Britain but we are not concerned with either, except as background. 

Fourth: We are a *multicultural society*. We play bagpipes at small town curling bonspiels and we play _banjis_ when a new Sikh temple is opened. We march down our streets with make-believe dragons and cymbals at the lunar New Year, pretending to be Irish every March, and then we follow along behind the draught horses to the  beer tents in September – for the _Oktoberfest_.  We rejoice in our folk customs but *not* in the ‘troubles’ of the lands of our ancestors. We send good will and money to the ‘old countries’ but we leave their problems there.

I don’t think it is too much to ask anyone who wants to stay here to adopt these simple, easy ‘values.’ You can be a good Muslim or Sikh in a wholly secular state. You can be a social conservative or a totally hedonistic gay _activist_ and still be a good Canadian – so long as you do not try to intrude on the privacy of any other Canadian by attempting to make *your social values* into *our laws*. You can have strong ties to the place from whence your grandparents came but you cannot fight *their wars* on *our streets*. Finally you have to want to *make history*, Canadian history, through your own work and talent.

If that’s too hard: move to the USA.


Edit: I forgot to include an important value from the other, 2,500 year, old enlightenment


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Nov 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We have drifted well off topic because we cannot ask or tell native born Canadians to ‘respect our values of leave,’ but ...



Raises an interesting point - when exactly was exile removed from the law books as a legitimate form of punishment?  And why is a native-born terrorist granted a free-pass when foreign-born terrorists that also happen to be Canadians can be exiled?

All of this is to set aside the moral question of dumping our garbage on the unsuspecting outside our borders.


----------



## kratz (7 Nov 2009)

[off topic] There have been some threads recently that have discussed the value of rating each other, the value of people debating controversial topics, and the yearly reminder that CF members should “keep their yap shut”, in the old vernacular. [/off topic]

I would like to take this time to thank E.R. Campbell and others (who I can not find the names I am looking for). Normally I acknowledge your erudite concise comments agreeing with my own thoughts. IAW site rules, I do not bother posting to adding to what has so eloquently been posted. As has been expressed before, this forum is a wealth of knowledge, experience and opinion. I subscribe to the phrase, “surround yourself by those who you wish to emulate”. 

Thank you for posting and keep it up.


----------



## gcclarke (7 Nov 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Raises an interesting point - when exactly was exile removed from the law books as a legitimate form of punishment?  And why is a native-born terrorist granted a free-pass when foreign-born terrorists that also happen to be Canadians can be exiled?
> 
> All of this is to set aside the moral question of dumping our garbage on the unsuspecting outside our borders.



The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, in article 15: 



> (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
> (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.



And the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that:



> 6.   (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.



Thus we cannot exile anyone who was born as a Canadian citizen of their citizenry, and by virtue of said citizenry, they have the right to remain in Canada should they so choose. At best we can strip citizenship from those who have obtained it after birth, and then subsequently *deport* (not exile!) them.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (8 Nov 2009)

The whole thrust of Canadian immigration has changed.  Many years back most of the people of non-European descent I knew were well educated and productive at a high level.  At some point it was decided to import large amounts of poorly skilled people to keep Canadian labour costs down.  That there would be problems that are common with poorly paid, low status individuals should surprise absolutely no-one.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Nov 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> The whole thrust of Canadian immigration has changed.  Many years back most of the people of non-European descent I knew were well educated and productive at a high level.  At some point it was decided to import large amounts of poorly skilled people to keep Canadian labour costs down.  That there would be problems that are common with poorly paid, low status individuals should surprise absolutely no-one.



I tend to think it was the Liebral party's attempt to increase their voting base.


----------



## mariomike (8 Nov 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I tend to think it was the Liebral party's attempt to increase their voting base.



I believe that to be true also.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Nov 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> The whole thrust of Canadian immigration has changed.  Many years back most of the people of non-European descent I knew were well educated and productive at a high level.  At some point it was decided to import large amounts of poorly skilled people to keep Canadian labour costs down.  That there would be problems that are common with poorly paid, low status individuals should surprise absolutely no-one.



I would be interested in seeing any data that suggests that, either:

1. Immigrants from Europe were in any meaningful way "well educated;" or

2. Non-European immigrants who came in the '50s and '60s from, say, the Caribbean, were "well educated;" or

3. 21st century Immigrants from Asia are less well educated.

Our greatest single immigration 'project' (late 19th/early 20th century was aimed,squarely, at Eastern European *peasants* - strong backs and _durability_ were what "we" were after when my grandmother came here with her family. She helper her 2nd Scots husband bust the prairie sod and she raised eight children in the process. She never learned to read much - wasn't required, either.

We do have educational _points_, now, for immigrants - something we never applied in the '40s and '50s and '60s to waves of European or West Indian immigrants. In fairness to your point every immigrant with an education is, quickly, entitled to bring in Mom and Dad and Grandma too - and they do. But I have never seen any evidence that immigrants in the early 21st century are not, in every respect, *more* productive than those of the early 20th century.

I think you are referring to refugees - which is a whole different matter.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Nov 2009)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, in article 15:
> 
> And the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that:
> 
> Thus we cannot exile anyone who was born as a Canadian citizen of their citizenry, and by virtue of said citizenry, they have the right to remain in Canada should they so choose. At best we can strip citizenship from those who have obtained it after birth, and then subsequently *deport* (not exile!) them.



Thanks GCC  -  I appreciate the information.

Doesn't it leave open as many questions as answers though?

For instance - the UN declares that everyone has a RIGHT to a nationality (one of Edward's Positive Rights) and then goes on to declare that that RIGHT can be withdrawn with cause (not ARBITRARILY but only through ARBITRATION by a licenced ARBITER presumably).  So it is a RIGHT until it is not a RIGHT and duly accredited Government presumably can strip you of that RIGHT.   Begs the question what the UN perceives a RIGHT is - It appears that it is something that is in the GIFT of Government and thus not a RIGHT at all.


As to the CCRF - "Every Citizen" has the RIGHT to remain, enter and leave but the award of Citizenship is again in the GIFT of Government. 

I applied for  and was Given my Certificate of Citizenship after I met certain criteria and agreed to certain conditions. There was nothing automatic about my citizenship.  There was no assumption of a RIGHT to citizenship.   In fact just the opposite - a contributing factor to my decision to choosing to become a Canadian Citizen was that Trudeau had just changed the rules whereby, previously, Brits and other members of the Commonwealth were automatically granted the RIGHT to vote in Canadian elections after meeting a residency requirement.  

Now, for the purpose of the argument, if it were possible for a "Johnny-come-lately Citizen" like me or that fella that was sent back to Syria for "coffee and conversation" to be stripped of their Canadian Citizenship then surely there would be no legal basis for preventing Native Born Canadians from being treated equally under the Charter?

So back to my point - Why can't we exile people?   Assuming that we can find a place to send them.


Some straw men for consideration.


----------



## mariomike (8 Nov 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> So back to my point - Why can't we exile people?   Assuming that we can find a place to send them.



Siberia and Devil's Island are out. So is modern Australia. Criminals would clamor to be exiled there. The way of life would be anything but an exile.


----------



## gcclarke (8 Nov 2009)

Well, the way that I read it is that everyone has the right to *A* nationality. That is to say, at least according to the UN, they can't be stripped of citizenship if they are not citizens of at least two nations. In practice, I believe this is interpreted to mean that a state can only strip someone of a citizenship that has been granted after their birth. Or, at the very least, from the point of view of this particular armchair lawyer, by Canada at least, I am unsure about how other nations deal with this issue. 

The core RIGHT is to be a citizen of the country of your birth. Along with that, you have a secondary right not to be arbitrarily stripped of citizenship of any other country which you subsequently become a citizen of. 

And this particular 2ndary right is very likely one of the reasons that it is so difficult to become a citizen of Canada. Because if the government makes a mistake and grants citizenship to the "wrong" person, then we're stuck with them for quite some time. Simply becoming a criminal after the fact is, if I recall correctly, not enough justification to strip an immigrant of their citizenship. You have to prove that said citizenship was obtained under "false pretenses". For example, this article (http://www.rickdykstra.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=446&Itemid=51&date=2009-11-01) outlines the story of two men who were stripped of their citizenship after it was proven that they lied about their past as SS Concentration Camp Guards during WWII when they were applying to become citizens. You can rest assured that quite a lot of money was spent on their cases.

So, yeah. I can't say whether or not there's some hideous undiscovered crime lurking in your past that threatens to strip you of your Canadian citizenship, but I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that you're probably safe. As for Mr. Arar, he also still retains his Canadian citizenship. Yes, he was deported to Syria, and underwent a rather unpleasant time as a result. But the key is that he was deported to Syria by the Americans, from America. They could have also simply deported him back to Canada as well. As for the fact that this was done partially based on information provided by our government, but then again, our courts have decided rather decisively that this was an error on our part as well. 


So yeah. To sum up, only place you can exile Canadians to is prisons within our borders.


----------



## Jungle (8 Nov 2009)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> So yeah. To sum up, only place you can exile Canadians to is prisons within our borders.



Then let's build a huge compound on Baffin Island, a kind of "Guantananorth", where we could send all the riff-raff...


----------



## gcclarke (8 Nov 2009)

No guard deserves to live in those conditions.


----------



## Jungle (8 Nov 2009)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> No guard deserves to live in those conditions.



We have people living in the NWT, in Nunavut and in the Yukon; why is it that people could not work/live on Baffin Island ? There are people living and working in Iqaluit (Frobisher Bay) they seem to be doing fine...

So, what's your point ?


----------



## GAP (8 Nov 2009)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Then let's build a huge compound on Baffin Island, a kind of "Guantananorth", where we could send all the riff-raff...



We already did that on a Provincial basis...... About 20+ years ago the Bands and Indian Affairs took all the malcontents/troublemakers/etc and banished them from their original reserves and put them out in the middle of nowhere call "Shamattawa".


----------



## Jungle (8 Nov 2009)

> The History of Shamattawa First Nation
> 
> When the York Fadtory Hudson's Bay operation was closed in the 1950's, Shamattawa was estblished as a permanent settlement. Shamattawa operated as an outpost to York Factory as early as 1915 and in 1934 it became a full post.



http://www.kitayan.ca/website/pages/shammatawa.html


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (8 Nov 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I would be interested in seeing any data that suggests that, either:
> 
> 1. Immigrants from Europe were in any meaningful way "well educated;" or
> 
> ...



I was referring to my experience which stretches back to the 1960s/1970s in Alberta when there were few visible minorities and most of those were to be seen in the education system or professions.  Most visible immigrant minorities I see today are in the service sector and mostly Asian.  They may all have PhDs from Timmy U or 7 Eleven U but I suspect not.

My immigrant grandfather finished grade 8 in Russia about 120 years ago which was well educated at the time and he spoke 3 languages quite fluently.  I don't think he was all that unusual.

As far as visible minorities go, my father went to a largely black school in rural Alberta and I went to school with some of their children.  We were all farmers and the blacks were no richer or poorer than anyone else and although I'm sure they could testify to incidents of racism they were totally integrated into the community.

When the government sets out to create economically underprivileged pockets of  visible minority immigrants it is asking for social problems.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Nov 2009)

Well, perhaps it’s a question of where you are. The visible minority people *I see* “in the service sector” are black or of apparently Middle Eastern origin. I am told, but cannot prove, that the *owners* of many of the service industry businesses are Asians. (But someone told me that almost all _take away pizza_ stores in Ottawa are owned by Middle Eastern immigrants for their families.)

The Asians *I know* do, by and large, have MAs, MSCs, MSEEs or PhDs.

Here is some data, extracted from a 26 May 07 _Montreal Gazette_ article that synopsized a lot of (then) recent StatsCan data (for which I am too lazy to search): 

•	23% of Canadians are foreign born;

•	49% of PhD holders are immigrants;

•	40% of those with a masters degree were born outside Canada; and

•	38% of male workers with a post-graduate degree are immigrants to the country.

If you’ll forgive me, I’ll go with the data and we can each have our own, unverifiable, _perceptions_.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (8 Nov 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is some data, extracted from a 26 May 07 _Montreal Gazette_ article that synopsized a lot of (then) recent StatsCan data (for which I am too lazy to search):
> 
> •	23% of Canadians are foreign born;
> 
> ...



I looked at the data with the intent of skewing it as necessary but came to the conclusion that even with over-representation less than 10% of immigrants have post-graduate education.  That still leaves 5 1/2 million without.

If you're right and there is no underprivelieged immigrant subculture good for us.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I looked at the data with the intent of skewing it as necessary but came to the conclusion that even with over-representation less than 10% of immigrants have post-graduate education.  That still leaves 5 1/2 million without.
> 
> If you're right and there is no underprivelieged immigrant subculture good for us.




I never suggested that immigrants are not underprivileged. The data suggests that an Asian immigrant with a PhD will earn less than a native born Canadian with a BA.

This data is old, a 2007 'Daily' based on the 2001 census, but it shows the problem: we are importing rather than growing PhDs.

My observations and those of others, reported elsewhere indicate that "we" are counting on immigrants and their children to provide us with our national brain powers. Presumably the sons and daughters of of _traditional_ white, Anglo/Franco, long term _settlers_ will drive our trucks, cut our hair and sell us our shoes.

We have several requirements:

=> We confuse _refugees_ with _immigrants_. They are not even remotely alike. We need different policies and programmes, administered by different people, for each;

=> We need a focused _immigration_ policy that meets *our* long term national 'needs.' For me that means more immigrants but from fewer parts of the world; and

=> We need to reform ourselves - we need to actually *raise* our children, we need to help them to "be the best they can be." That means that 75% of PhDs ought to be earned by native born Canadians. The _traditional_, white, Anglo/Franco, 'settler' population is second rate and falling. It, we, are failing our country. We are asking the Chinese to rescue it for us.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (9 Nov 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> we are importing rather than growing PhDs.



I often wonder what foreign students think after spending a fortune to get a Canadian education and end up at what looks like homecoming week back home.

I think there is a major failure in Canada by not teaching sufficient medical professionals, professors, etc.  These are simply opportunities denied our children, many of whom are children of immigrants.

The population problem could be simply solved by convincing Canadian women to have 2.2 kids each.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Nov 2009)

Pardon my lack of understanding, but what is the big deal with PhD's?  IMO, down at street level, we don't need more overthinkers.  We need people who have solid values and are willing to do what it takes to put our country first.  Intellectual discourse is just that; gabbing and not doing.
Sorry, when I hear PhD I think "university" and I don't see much coming out of our "higher learning institutions" that would suggest that they are working towards that means.  Quite the contrary actually.


----------



## gcclarke (9 Nov 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Pardon my lack of understanding, but what is the big deal with PhD's?  IMO, down at street level, we don't need more overthinkers.  We need people who have solid values and are willing to do what it takes to put our country first.  Intellectual discourse is just that; gabbing and not doing.
> Sorry, when I hear PhD I think "university" and I don't see much coming out of our "higher learning institutions" that would suggest that they are working towards that means.  Quite the contrary actually.



Technical innovations are driven by research, much of which is conducted in Universities by people with Masters degrees and PhDs. To suggest that nothing of more use than "gabbing" comes out of intellectual discourse is frankly foolish. This is the type of anti-intellectualism that is threatening our (the collective "our", including the UK, the US) technological and economic superiority. Should it continue, well, let's just hope our grandchildren can speak Mandarin.

Yes, "ideas" are useless without someone to implement them, but simply having someone to implement things is useless without ideas. We need both sides of the coin for the human race to prosper.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Pardon my lack of understanding, but what is the big deal with PhD's?  IMO, down at street level, we don't need more overthinkers.  We need people who have solid values and are willing to do what it takes to put our country first.  Intellectual discourse is just that; gabbing and not doing.
> Sorry, when I hear PhD I think "university" and I don't see much coming out of our "higher learning institutions" that would suggest that they are working towards that means.  Quite the contrary actually.



Read that "Daily" I cited above. It begins by saying: _"The supply of PhDs plays an increasingly important role in determining Canada's ability to compete in the emerging global knowledge economy."_

I know I go on and on and on about *productivity* and I know that almost no one cares. But, sadly, productivity matters and it does not much involve the street level.

I also go on and on say that poor productivity does not mean we have stupid or lazy workers at street level. It means the "street level" workers are not working *smart* (enough) because business and labour _leadership_ do not organize and manage well enough or do not give the "street level" workers the right tools. The "best' organization and management techniques and the "tools" needed to help workers be more productive (more productive = more and better *output* per hour worked *with less worker effort* applied) are the _business_ of people with PhDs.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I often wonder what foreign students think after spending a fortune to get a Canadian education and end up at what looks like homecoming week back home.



Many are dismayed. 



			
				Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I think there is a major failure in Canada by not teaching sufficient medical professionals, professors, etc.  These are simply opportunities denied our children, many of whom are children of immigrants.



To accomplish that we have to have two things:

1. Enough spaces - which means we need more and more people with MDs and PhDs to do the teaching; and

2. Enough students - which means that _native Canadian_ students have to work a whole helluva lot harder in elementary and secondary school which means that _native Canadian_ parents have to get off their fat asses and _raise_ their kids instead of warehousing them.



			
				Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> The population problem could be simply solved by convincing Canadian women to have 2.2 kids each.



It could be partially solved by achieving the _replacement_ rate but our population should grow beyond simple replacement level and it should must be *improved* by immigration.


----------



## chanman (9 Nov 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 1. Enough spaces - which means we need more and more people with MDs and PhDs to do the teaching; and



To illustrate the point...

My brother is on track to apply to the School of Optometry at the University of Waterloo. It is also the only optometry school in English Canada (there is one francophone school in Montreal). The Waterloo School of Optometry website proudly proclaims that it has 2262 alumni since opening in 1967. That works out to an average of under 55 per year. They mention there are roughy 3000 practicing optometrists in Canada. That gives roughly 1 optometrist for every 10,000 Canadians. They accept 90 students per year, up from about 60 students when the the program was established. Practicing optometrists that my brother has spoken to confirm that class size has not dramatically changed in the last two decades.


----------



## Antoine (10 Nov 2009)

I can think of many people that have kept our country competitive and relatively wealthy without holding a PhD. My :2c: is that business is a lot about gut feeling, common sense, skills in making informed judgements, good synthesis and creativity. The technical knowledge can always be bought from a university or college graduate or outsourced for cheap oversea (but I don't like it). 

After a good undergrad in commerce or economics (even science or engineering for friends I think about that bought biotech company) followed by exposure to the real world and then (if not enough) back to school for an MBA, that should be more than enough to be successful. Knowledge coming from academic literature is available to everyone and can be applied wisely and fine tune to the real world. Lets look at the past economic crash and see how many "smart PhD" have been involved in it, might be surprising.

Here, let me give you an hypothetical (naive) example about a smart tradesman without university degree but a lot of common sense and general culture:
Mr. Carpenter realizes that exporting our natural ressources is a nonsense and way more money and jobs can be made with transformation, added value and so on. Then he decides to target a market of wood furnishing in Asia or create a demand over there (OK, needs to hire people in advertising, marketing, in the know of Asia....). He starts a shop and having good skills with an open mind, he is able to satisfy the customer taste making a break through in Asia. Then he understands that by using wood from Canada and by transforming it, he could get subventions (or lobbying for it) from federal and provincial government to make his company bigger and so on....

Back to the present thread, I don't want to start again the debate about multiculturalism, but if every subculture lives in its own world, then each have its own set of values and might tell you: Respect our values or Leave when you are passing by their area. Thus, I still think that school from kindergarden to university is a good place to implement the values we would like to transmit to the next generation. That is if we can agree once for all what are those values, official languages and stick to it without making exception to accommodate one minority group and then another one. 

I realize that it is a complex issue and I am not a scholar in humanities neither much involved in social work, so herein you'll find my  :2c:.

Regards,


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (10 Nov 2009)

Pretty much all the millionaires I know lack any education beyond high school, if even that.  Raw business skills are hard to teach while the technical areas are easier.  An example might be a trucker with one truck who ends up with 20.  While he requires little more than experience, the trucks he drives and the roads he drives on are designed by well educated technicians.  While business is driven by people with a mix of education, the technicians develop the know-how to do it better than anyone else.  While a very good business profit might be 5 % of sales, developing technology to save 5% of costs could lead to doubled profits.  As every company in the world is developing technology simultaneously, it is usually a matter of adapt or die.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2009)

While there are lots of smart and successful people without higher education, the real point of having higher education (or hiring people with those qualifications and skillsets) is that is where the game changers are. 

Consider transportation about two centuries ago. A mule driver could become quite successful and own several teams and wagons, but be put out of business when the railroad arrived. The railroad requires many different skill sets, from engineering, metallurgy, telegraphs, construction engineering etc. which would be difficult for uneducated people to develop (but which bright people can see applications for after they are invented).

Our truck driving friend today might live to see the transportation industry radically altered by the widespread introduction of "3D printers", allowing people at home to make most common household items on the spot. This will also alter retail, manufacturing, banking and many, many other industries and institutions.

For Canada, the real issue here is where are these game changers going to come from; RIM in Waterloo or from across the Pacific Rim?


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Nov 2009)

>The "best' organization and management techniques and the "tools" needed to help workers be more productive ... are the business of people with PhDs.

Apologies in advance if I give offence, but that has to be the most amusing statement of the thread.  Lately there has been some discussion among the professional chatterers as to the notion of "anti-intellectualism" and "anti-elitism"; but I conclude they have misdiagnosed prudent skepticism of the basic competence of people in high places who aren't as smart as they think they are.  It is not that I am "anti-intellectual"; it is just that I can see when a person's intellect and education are outmatched by his ambition and self-regard.  The failing is common among politicians and advocates of centralized control.

Very few of the people I meet who hold PhDs hold one in a field relative to whatever it is they do to perpetuate their existence.  Many hold one in a field of very limited practical application.  Also, high intellect and advanced education are not correlated with basic common sense (eg. the ability to do something simply and efficiently, like put up an umbrella or move a piece of furniture).  Finally, the theories and ideas which emanate particularly from the social / educational world of high achievement often bear no use whatsoever in the "real world" and are, almost as often, counterproductive.  I suppose the same might be true of "business theorists", if such a creature exists.  The grounds of business and economics are not thickly covered by people who know what they are doing.

Process improvements are usually incremental.  And - this is just an instinctive guess - I suppose they come more often from the factory floor (or the floor's supervisors) than from anyone in the upper tiers of management, let alone the academic set.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Nov 2009)

The real point of having higher non-specialized education is to drive up the starting point for salary negotiations, or to pad the resume and fill time waiting for repeated applications to low-acceptance specialty schools (eg. medicine, law) to bear fruit.  A master's or PhD is an expression of self-discipline and effort - ability and potential, not experience and judgement.

People in the former category (salary boost) are good at creating niches for themselves which meet their expectations.  It is harder in the private sector, but the evidence is clear every time a bunch of people in the middle layers are released from employment without any crippling effect on the business.  The public sector is of course the ideal environment: layers of people making "business cases" to hire more people like themselves, without a price signal in sight to indicate how much their time is really worth.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Nov 2009)

I have met some academics that are very good at what they do and are as dumb as stumps outside their field. We had one in the arctic we called him “professor zero” he had forgotten to pack most of his experiments onto the ship in Victoria and then was mad at us when he arrived in the arctic to start his research only to find he didn’t have all his equipment. Had another one from UBC, doing water quality tests that wanted me to drift with the tide but stay in the same place…..sigh.


----------



## Antoine (10 Nov 2009)

We need people to feed the R&D, IT and services (including Law, health care and buisness-finances) sectors that required graduates from BA/BSc to PhD.

For example, I just came from a seminar given by Dr. Bill Tenn from The Dow Chemical Company

https://www.chem.ubc.ca/local/event_details.php?id=1100

He said: (Not an exact quote) To stay competitive and profitable, due to cost of feedstock and energy required for transformation, we either improve the economics of our current plant base or move our integrated production to new locations with cheaper feedstocks and cost of exploitation. By improving the economics, he didn't mean lowering the salary of employees and cut corner on regulations (environments, benefits,...) but more improving for example the technology at home which involved a lot of R & D.

Also for people living in BC, at knowledgenetwork channel, an interresting documentary to watch: BRITAIN FROM ABOVE

http://tvschedule.knowledgenetwork.ca/knsch/KNSeriesPage.jsp?seriesID=16182910&seriesTitle=britainfromabove

The Host explained how London has changed from an industrial city with a lot of plants to an IT city without many plants around.

Sorry, I got on a tangent again !


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2009)

I don’t know much about “street level” business, nor do I know any millionaire truck drivers (but I do know a pretty prosperous heavy equipment owner/operator), but the data, international  data, shows, *consistently*, that the rate of PhD _production_ leads a country's productivity. Put simply more PhDs = higher productivity. The data is consistent and persuasive.

Of course there are PhD holders who cannot tie their bloody shoes – there are equally inept grammar school drop outs.

The *fact* is that more PhDs in a country gives a higher standard of living for all in that country. I am happy to consider any data that contradicts that fact, but I don’t expect to see it.

Education is a nearly perfect predictor of productivity and prosperity.

That’s why we need more and more PhDs; in all fields, especially but not only in science and engineering.


----------



## tango22a (10 Nov 2009)

ER Campbell:

I'm sure you know what B.S. is

ergo.....M.S= More of same...and

Ph.D .......Piled higher and deeper                  J/K....of course


Cheers,


tango22a


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (10 Nov 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don’t know much about “street level” business, nor do I know any millionaire truck drivers (but I do know a pretty prosperous heavy equipment owner/operator), but the data, international  data, shows, *consistently*, that the rate of PhD _production_ leads a country's productivity. Put simply more PhDs = higher productivity. The data is consistent and persuasive.
> 
> Of course there are PhD holders who cannot tie their bloody shoes – there are equally inept grammar school drop outs.
> 
> ...



Does higher education cause higher productivity and prosperity or is it correlated? A higher education can certainly lead to higher income for an individual, but does that hold true for a whole economy when all else is held equal? Would giving every Icelander a PhD save that countrie's economy?

I can see the benefits of the knowledge-based economy, but I sometimes get the feeling that the West came up with education as a place to put kids once those do-gooders stopped letting children perform productive work in matchstick factories, mills and mines.

Regarding the thread, does a PhD from the University of Tribleckastan carry the same weight as one from here?

I like the 50s/60s model. Come to Canada. Work hard in resource extraction/mining/construction/paving. Save money. Sends kids to school. Have them blend in.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Nov 2009)

>The fact is that more PhDs in a country gives a higher standard of living for all in that country. I am happy to consider any data that contradicts that fact, but I don’t expect to see it.

Then we may just be looking at the data differently.  PhD candidates require a feeder stream; the breakdown of data may show that people holding PhDs contribute directly more than their share of productivity gains but it may just be the case that the number of PhDs is a proxy for a general measure of a well-educated work force.

But the claim that having more PhD holders causes (not merely correlates with) greater overall productivity (by whatever measure) is not the same as what I read to be a suggestion that PhD holders are - or should be - the cadre in whose hands we leave the development of productivity TTPs.  We need to understand and separate the contributions of dramatic innovation and incremental process improvements.

Although in the abstract productivity gains are good, there are potential social downsides.  For creative destruction to work in a human context, the displaced employees must be able to find new employment within their capabilities.  We have probably already reached the point at which jobs can be rendered redundant (or moved elsewhere) faster than they can be created.  We may soon be reaching a point at which the tools of productivity become necessarily more complex so as to exclude an ever-increasing segment of the population from meaningful employment.  Finally, we will be sunk in a deep pothole in shit creek if we become overdependent on fragile (easily disrupted) technologies and infrastructure and no-one remembers the "old ways" to do things.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2009)

I agree with Brad Sallows that we are running short of the low skill/high wage jobs that have, traditionally, underpinned our standard of living.

The problems are:

1. Some jobs are inherently low skill and can be exported to very low wage economies; and

2. The low skill _jobs_ that cannot be exported – resource extraction, for example – can be made much, much more productive, and, therefore, far less plentiful by automation. Consider just the giant T282B truck. One, with one driver, is able to do more than 10 other trucks, with ten drivers, at a lower cost.







The big truck does require a few high skill/high wage mechanics, but overall it increases productivity and destroys low skill jobs. 

There is no near term solution, at least none of which I am aware or can imagine, to the destruction of low skill jobs. Some, but only some people, can be retrained and/or re-educated to make then _fit_ for new, higher skill jobs – but not all. But: That situation obtains in every _advanced_ and _advancing_ economy so it is a _net_ economic draw. (I am not ignoring the very real human problems but they are there for another part of the social policy discussion.)
  
To Tabgo2Bravo’s points: Maybe not oddly, but in _retarded_ economies – those that typically exist in _failing_ states, the correlation between educational _production_ and productivity is negative. I say it’s not odd because we should be able to understand that a _retarded_ economy education is a cost which drains output away from the balance sheet.

In _advancing_ economies I have been unable to find any examples of educational  production that is counter-productive. (Now, in fairness, this is the first time I have ever looked. All of the research with which I am familiar says that more/better education = better productivity = greater prosperity. But I have now looked for more than an hour and I cannot find anything that contradicts the _received wisdom_.)

The correlation between education and productivity is related to both quantity and quality.

Quantity is terribly important at the secondary and immediate post secondary levels. All the data I have ever seen says that overall productivity rises directly with increases in the *quantity* of secondary and post secondary  education – post secondary being, very broadly, trade schools/programmes, community colleges and university undergraduate programmes. If more young people stay in school longer, then productivity will rise. If young people leave secondary school in increasing numbers then productivity will grow more slowly and, if enough young people leave secondary school too early, productivity will actually decline.

The qualitative effects are, as far as I have read over the years, more startling – especially at the graduate _Master_ and _Doctorate_ levels. Specifically a PhD from the excellent _University of Somewhere Quite Nice_ might well be far more _productive_, in an advancing economy, than one from the lesser quality _University of Tribalstan_.

(Either or both might be immediately *un*productive for _Tribalstan_ itself because the resources needed to operate a university represent a _current_ loss to the economy.)

The problem with the ‘50s/’60s models is that increased productivity means there are fewer of those low skill jobs and the ones that remain are being overfilled by native born Canadians. We are importing PhDs because we cannot produce enough from *our own* people. The children of the imported PhDs and of the taxi drivers and pizza cooks, too, are, now, filling our universities and graduate schools in disproportionately high numbers. But: The immigrants’ kids are not exactly _blending in_ because they are better educated, more productive and more prosperous than their _peers_.

Finally, nothing would have rescued Iceland from fiscal and monetary irresponsibility but maybe a few more PhDs would have prevented some of it. The potential liabilities of Iceland’s three largest banks exceeded the entire GDP of Iceland by a multiple of five; that’s a sign of poor bank regulation. (There are  six governors and deputy governors of the Bank of Canada; all have at least an MA and four of the six have PhDs.)


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Nov 2009)

Pardon my poorly educated high school dropout input, but perhaps if the major financial institutions had a few less PhD's on staff, and a few more common sense prairie farmers, our economy wouldn't be in the shyte state it's in now.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2009)

We, the entire "West" need more and more better educated people, but we also need more of the _fiscally prudent_ 'values' of those prairie farmers and small town, independent businessmen.


----------



## Antoine (10 Nov 2009)

Well said Mr. Campbell !

It sums up what I was trying to say in my approximative English.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (10 Nov 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> To Tabgo2Bravo’s points: Maybe not oddly, but in _retarded_ economies – those that typically exist in _failing_ states, the correlation between educational _production_ and productivity is negative. I say it’s not odd because we should be able to understand that a _retarded_ economy education is a cost which drains output away from the balance sheet.



Another thing I've seen mentioned is that in underdeveloped countries educated people will not resort to a subsistence living when not finding employment to use their skills.  There often tends to be a large unemployed/underemployed group of young men educated in western technolgy for which few local jobs exist.  Many countries maintain large armies to employ enough of these men to get them onside and keep them occupied.


----------



## gcclarke (10 Nov 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We, the entire "West" need more and more better educated people, but we also need more of the _fiscally prudent_ 'values' of those prairie farmers and small town, independent businessmen.



And this, my good people, is a large part of our problem. The sons and daughters of our "good old Canadian" prairie farmers and small town, independent businessmen are not pursuing higher education at a rate high enough to meet the demands of the Canadian economy. We don't have enough PhDs and MScs with home grown western values, but we still have the positions to fill. Thus, when we do import them, they may indeed not share the same values as most of the rest of society. This becomes especially problematic when we are bringing them in from places where the concept of capitalism and a market economy are new and exciting.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Nov 2009)

See here and here for data and observations on what is happening in our universities.

In _productivity_ terms – and I know almost everyone hates the word and the idea – we are not getting our country ready to work *smarter* because we are failing to ready our own children to *be smarter*. (Smart ≠ educated; it means better prepared for whatever comes in the workplace. Education and training are part of being and working smart but so are R&D and good management. It’s easier to be and work smart if you boss provides the right tools and make the organizational superstructure support your work.)

Maybe, Mods the posts from here to this one could be moved to the  Making Canada Relevant Again- The Economic Super-Thread thread.


----------



## GAP (11 Nov 2009)

In no way should we emulate the European Mentality in many things, but one thing they did very well and that has held them in good stead with productivity and R&D, is the apprenticeship programs. We think our dropouts/post secondary students are adequately served if we throw them into a 10month to 2 year program at a Technical Institute and off they go. 

The Europeans, from the Industrial Revolution on, created Guilds/equivelants that indoctrinated the work ethic/reward system into young people. North America was populated largely by this high work ethic, and now we are bemoaning it not being in our future generations, but we are doing little about it.

Companies use people like a stove uses coal. Then we get rid of the ashes....


----------



## YZT580 (11 Nov 2009)

Guilds have been prevalent in Europe since probably the 12th century: if not earlier than that.  In H.S. guidance departments throughout at least Ontario the emphasis has been on getting to university.  Well, we don't need university graduates as much as we need skilled labourers.  We need the skilled heavy equipment operator, the mechanic.  Try finding a school that offers this type of training.  There are at least 10 that are training people for non-existent newspaper, radio, TV positions (more positions in the schools than there exists total jobs in the market) and only 2 that offer heavy equipment.  We have taught our children that common labour is beneath them, that is why we import labour now.  

High schools used to offer trade courses, skills training etc. but the industrial arts departments were shut down years ago.  Some schools still have some options but nothing like the industry-linked courses that were offered.
As for the statements regarding more productivity I would ask you to look at agriculture.  A mennonite farmer with 100 acres and two teams of horses makes an equivalent profit to the farmer with a full section or more of land and 300,000 dollars worth of equipment.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Nov 2009)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> ...
> As for the statements regarding more productivity I would ask you to look at agriculture.  A mennonite farmer with 100 acres and two teams of horses makes an equivalent profit to the farmer with a full section or more of land and 300,000 dollars worth of equipment.



You are quire correct. There is considerable evidence that indicates that small ≠ unproductive, and not just in agriculture either. Broadly, larger enterprises are able to lower some costs and, if they reinvest the savings, become more productive. But small farms, especially, family farms can be very productive for many reasons, including:


> There's a good deal of controversy about why this relationship exists. Some researchers argued that it was the result of a statistical artefact: fertile soils support higher populations than barren lands, so farm size could be a result of productivity, rather than the other way around. But further studies have shown that the inverse relationship holds across an area of fertile land. Moreover, it works even in countries such as Brazil, where the biggest farmers have grabbed the best land.
> 
> The most plausible explanation is that small farmers use more labour per hectare than big farmers. Their workforce largely consists of members of their own families, which means that labour costs are lower than on large farms (they don't have to spend money recruiting or supervising workers), while the quality of the work is higher. With more labour, farmers can cultivate their land more intensively: they spend more time terracing and building irrigation systems; they sow again immediately after the harvest; and they might grow several crops in the same field.


Source

I don’t think the relationship (smaller *can* be more productive) is limited to agriculture but I do not have data to support that belief. What we know is that capital tends to promote a grow or shrivel model – which might be wrong.


----------



## Antoine (12 Nov 2009)

"Thursday's release of a new citizenship guide will mark a shift in what it means to become Canadian, emphasizing for the first time Canada's military and political histories and the responsibilities bestowed upon the quarter-million newcomers who migrate to Canada each year." from www.nationalpost.com

Let see if it is going to help.


----------



## 1feral1 (12 Nov 2009)

I'll sum up by saying I lived with Yank Sheila from Southern California, who aside from being a gym junkie, was a Doctor of mathamatics at ANSTO (Australia's one and only nuclear reactor) in Sydney's south. She was a whiz at her job, yet could not change a 9v batt in a smoke detector (yes I am serious), and in many ways seemed to be 'socially retarded'.

Just because one has an education does make them the sharpest commando dagger in the Regiment.

My two cents.

PS - She was an asset at tax time  :nod:

OWDU


----------



## mariomike (12 Nov 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> I'll sum up by saying I lived with Yank Sheila from Southern California, who aside from being a gym junkie, was a Doctor of mathamatics at ANSTO (Australia's one and only nuclear reactor) in Sydney's south. She was a whiz at her job, yet could not change a 9v batt in a smoke detector (yes I am serious), and in many ways seemed to be 'socially retarded'.



Like the old joke about how many mathematicians it takes to screw in a light bulb.
Answer: A mathematician can’t screw in a light bulb, but s/he can easily prove the work can be done.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Nov 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> I'll sum up by saying I lived with Yank Sheila from Southern California, who aside from being a gym junkie, was a Doctor of mathamatics at ANSTO (Australia's one and only nuclear reactor) in Sydney's south. She was a whiz at her job, yet could not change a 9v batt in a smoke detector (yes I am serious), and in many ways seemed to be 'socially retarded'.
> 
> Just because one has an education does make them the sharpest commando dagger in the Regiment.
> 
> ...




And all that anecdotal evidence is worth, precisely, two thirds of five eighths of bugger all.

I too know PhDs who have difficulty walking and chewing gum at the same time. But, equally, I know some PhDs who are very good at damned near everything: their specialties, sports, auto repair, home carpentry, hunting and fishing and so so. Additionally, I know some high school dropouts and high school graduates who are inept and stupid, one or two of them were senior NCOs in the Army who no one would trust with a hammer and nail.

And my anecdotal evidence is equally meaningless.

If you think education is unrelated to productivity please provide some data to support that thesis. I have looked, a bit, and I haven't found any.

So I stand by my contention: *more PhDs and more education and training, in general ≈ greater productivity at the national level ≈ greater prosperity for all.*


----------



## JackD (13 Nov 2009)

From the perspective of someone working in (Central) Europe, in the educational field (for how long, I don't know - Poland is rather xenophobic). i'd say the Canadian educational system is superior. Why? Because it teaches you to think and plan. The (Central) European system teaches you to memorize trivia - but not how to do research - and if you introduce items like that into your classroom, you get dinged. As to academic credentials - especially in the soft sciences, lots of masters papers and PHD's are purchased and the research is forged. There is little original work done in these parts. In addition, in many research papers, what good and original research work done is often accredited to individuals who never set foot into the laboratory/class/whatever - they are either the department chief who is never seen, or a relative of the department chief - never seen. The Canadian system is far superior. it is not perfect. The university system (i encountered) is elitist and frankly, something of a waste of time (from my perspective, having a bachelor degree in agronomy). The community college system is the key - I also did forestry and geology training in Sault College. The instructors were enthusiastic, knowledgeable and experienced - and could teach. Moreover, the curriculum was meaningful.  As an aside, standards of education in Canada have slipped. My brother went back to university in the middle 90's at age 40 something. He obtained degrees with honours in history and English.  He could not afford the assigned textbooks  and this was pre-Internet.  He used as his main texts  some second-hand  1950's high school grammar books/literature books, and a history book  originally written for elementary pupils dated 1962. In a sense, what it comes down to is the individual: are they learned despite the system or because of the system? More people in Canada are learned because of the system.


----------



## YZT580 (13 Nov 2009)

And all that anecdotal evidence is worth, precisely, two thirds of five eighths of bugger all.

I too know PhDs who have difficulty walking and chewing gum at the same time. But, equally, I know some PhDs who are very good at damned near everything: their specialties, sports, auto repair, home carpentry, hunting and fishing and so so. Additionally, I know some high school dropouts and high school graduates who are inept and stupid, one or two of them were senior NCOs in the Army who no one would trust with a hammer and nail.

And my anecdotal evidence is equally meaningless.

Actually, the anecdotal evidence provides an insight into the issue.  It demonstrates that the requirements are balanced.  Both PhDs and skilled/semi-skilled individuals are required to ensure prosperity.  The military requires both trained pilots to perform missions and a chap with the necessary mechanical aptitude to change a tire.  Industry has the same dual requirements.  We make a serious mistake if we focus on one to the detriment of the other.  We tend to show disdain for the chap who provides the muscle: how many MPs or church deacons for that matter have worked in a factory?  We tend to select the educated elite instead of the experienced craftsman.


----------



## Journeyman (13 Nov 2009)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The military requires both trained pilots to perform missions and a chap with the necessary mechanical aptitude to change a tire


.....and someone lacking faith in both, so that jumping out the back seems the rational option  ;D


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (13 Nov 2009)

JackD said:
			
		

> My brother went back to university in the middle 90's at age 40 something. He obtained degrees with honours in history and English.  He could not afford the assigned textbooks  and this was pre-Internet.  He used as his main texts  some second-hand  1950's high school grammar books/literature books, and a history book  originally written for elementary pupils dated 1962. In a sense, what it comes down to is the individual: are they learned despite the system or because of the system? More people in Canada are learned because of the system.



Someone in his 40s is not majoring in social life.  Older students often do well because they actually go to class, read the material, and hand in assignments without being hung-over or dead tired.  

Part of the problem is that while they don't create any more smart people than they ever did, they graduate many times the students.  Something has to give.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Nov 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We, the entire "West" need more and more better educated people, but we also need more of the _fiscally prudent_ 'values' of those prairie farmers and small town, independent businessmen.



Of course, those are not the values of urbanites in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver, or seasonal workers in the Maritimes, or pur laine Quebecois. One of the issues with the thesis of "Fearful Symmetry" suggests the hard work ethic of the Scottish settlers is the "true" Canadian value. While there are a lot of virtues in those values, I would suggest they form part of the matrix of values that under gridded Canada until the 1960's.

This argument has been played out before on this forum, we need to know just what are "Canadian values" before any sort of Civic Nationalism can be implimented.


----------



## Antoine (13 Nov 2009)

> we need to know just what are "Canadian values" before any sort of Civic Nationalism can be implimented.



You will find all these in the new citizenship guide recently released.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Nov 2009)

Antoine said:
			
		

> You will find all these in the new citizenship guide recently released.



Plenty of followers of the LPT (Liberal Party of Toronto) would beg to differ. I would think several times before taking a pam written by a bunch of bureaucrats at face value, even though I will say there are a few agreeable things in it.

Remember Civic Nationalism is an attempt to fuse values into an entire culture, the vast array of patriotic songs, festivals and holidays in the United States (and the ever present "Old Glory") are all deliberate constructs dating to the period between the Cival War and the @1920's created to indoctrinate and assimilate people into American citizens.


----------



## Antoine (14 Nov 2009)

I agree with you.

My post was more on the sarcasm notes as I was fed up to hear today and yesterday in many medias that the new guide is going to help in the "magic" integration of immigrants by helping them to understand our core values from my limited understanding of what I have heard (not a sarcasm !).


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Nov 2009)

I think a great deal of it has to do with hyphenated Canadians who lean too far to the left of the hyphen. Let me explain: I'm British born, and proud to be so, but I identify as Canadian, not British-Canadian. I maintain my heritage in my household and participate in community events, but I'm still Canadian first. I'm not suggesting that assimilation is the way forward, but I think that we as a society need to identify as Canadian first, and whatever else second. I get the sense sometimes that as a nation we're like a bus with 8000 steering wheels and each driver wants to go in a different direction.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (15 Nov 2009)

I think ModlrMike is bang on.  Canada first.  However, since the Charter guarantees that nobody has to respect anyone or anything, we now have a disintegrating society of individuals.  Oh wait, a "mosaic".  



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Remember Civic Nationalism is an attempt to fuse values into an entire culture, the vast array of patriotic songs, festivals and holidays in the United States (and the ever present "Old Glory") are all deliberate constructs dating to the period between the Cival War and the @1920's created to indoctrinate and assimilate people into American citizens.



And what is wrong with that?  I can't think that anyone can argue that our way (vis-a-vis Britain) is better.  I've never seen anyone in the United States sit through a national anthem but it sure to hell happens here often enough.  The States may have their flaws and need to work on some things, but at least they know what it means to be American.  Can anyone say what it means to be Canadian?  Other than "we sure ain't American".  I don't see how being super accommodating, being hyper-tolerant, being the proverbial "nice guys" is getting us anywhere other than having our societal fabric trampled by people who have not come here to enjoy the life our country could provide, but rather to import their own brand of intolerance, prejudice, religious zealotry and xenophobia and foist it upon their immediate surroundings?  There are a great many people that come into our good country with the full knowledge that we are a bunch of suckers and they are going to get away with murder.  Literally sometimes.  Since our birth rate demographics are not going to bear out the preservation of our culture much past 30 odd years from now, perhaps we should get a grip on what sort of Canada we want to be part of.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Nov 2009)

I've been looking through paperwork for a home sale, when I came across a certificate from the IODE which my dad received on becoming a Canadian citizen in 1959.  I'm going to share the text to offer a reference point for discussion down the line (capitalization as it appears on the certificate):



> Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire
> I.O.D.E.
> Present Greetings
> To you (name)
> ...


----------



## mariomike (17 Nov 2009)

"THE CASTING OFF OF OLD HATREDS:  Canada has set her feet upon the paths of peace, at home and among the nations of the world."

50 years later, after two bloody World Wars, and how far have we come?
I don't know if your Dad is still with us, but thank you for sharing that document. I enjoyed reading it.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Nov 2009)

That is a country I recognize Tony - unfortunately only in the rear-view mirror.

A couple of interesting points of coincidence - when I graduated from high school in Peterborough, ON, the IODE granted me a cash award for placing well in history and also gave me two history books.  One of them was a history of Thunder Bay - Port Arthur, Fort William.

The longer you live the more coincidences you encounter.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Nov 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Since our birth rate demographics are not going to bear out the preservation of our culture much past 30 odd years from now, perhaps we should get a grip on what sort of Canada we want to be part of.



Fear not. The United States is still growing in real terms (with a projected population mid century of 500 to 550 million), and I suspect they will re emerge as the sole superpower in the post 2020 world as first Russia, then the EU and finally China and the Islamic world undergo demographic crashes. (Canada and Japan will  have crashed in the mid 2020's). The only other growing superpower in the mid century will be India, so the Anglosphere will dominate the world after all.

Young Americans (from large "Red State" families) will immigrate to Canada starting in the late 2020's, seeking the high wages Canadian business will have to offer in order to get workers, and of course importing their values and beliefs as well. They will have the numbers and economic clout to change Canadian institutions, which will no doubt enrage elderly Dippers and Liberals in their Toronto and Vancouver enclaves, and probably puzzle and confound the rest of us as well.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (18 Nov 2009)

Tony, thanks for that awesome piece of history.  Sad how badly off of a simple path we strayed.  Amazing how a so-called "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" could annihilate such a simply stated and well put document.  

Thucydides, that is some cold consolation you are offering!  :-\  Would  it not be preferable to maybe try to drum something that resembles common sense into the sheeple and try to turn things around now?  Hoping for something over a decade from now seems rather faint hope, especially when things are heading south at full afterburner.


----------



## mariomike (18 Nov 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Would  it not be preferable to maybe try to drum something that resembles common sense into the sheeple and try to turn things around now?



I think that ship has already sailed. Sheeple these days are likely to look upon a person talking common sense as some kind of Klansman. 

[/quote]
Hoping for something over a decade from now seems rather faint hope, especially when things are heading south at full afterburner.
[/quote]
 ;D Ain't that the truth!


----------



## a_majoor (19 Nov 2009)

I'm afraid the Canadian Republic is the project not of the next decade, but the next generation. While we will be suffering from a demographic bust in the 2020's, the resurgent United States will only just be starting their population "surge", and American workers will move into Canada in full force in the 2040's (although there will be people coming in long before).

Changing the attitudes of the sheeple will also take a generation. Think of this like Afghanistan. Do you expect the attiudes of Afghans to change in the next few years? We are creating conditions that will allow the next generation of Afghans to change their culture, we need to do the same here.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (25 Nov 2009)

I suppose.  But Afghanistan can be forgiven its ignorance as a result of decades of war, backward tribal dynamics and no discernible education system.  What is our excuse?  PET had a vision of how to destroy a country and everyone got sucked in?


----------



## mariomike (25 Nov 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> PET had a vision of how to destroy a country and everyone got sucked in?



Not all of us were. But, what could we do about it? Most of us were just trying to earn a living and put our kids through school.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Nov 2009)

Here's how they're approaching things - from Deutsche Welle (also note Ms. Boehmer's title):


> Germany plans to have immigrants sign "integration contracts" that would oblige foreigners seeking to live in the country to avow certain values, such as freedom of speech and equal rights for women.
> 
> German Integration Commissioner Maria Boehmer has said that she wants to move on plans to have new immigrants sign a contract with the state. Such a move, she argues, would make integration efforts more binding.
> 
> ...



A bit more from the BBC.


----------



## GAP (8 Mar 2010)

Beyond the pale on the veil

Should Canadian colleges be more tolerant of Islamic fundamentalism than Cairo's universities?
Article Link

There should be a limit to accommodating religious minorities, and that limit has been reached. An Egyptian-born woman wearing a niqab – the veil that hides the face except for the eyes – was expelled from a French-language class for immigrants in Montreal after all conceivable efforts had been made to try to accommodate her beliefs.

Naima Ahmed, a 29-year-old pharmacist and mother of three, reportedly refused to lift her veil to reveal her mouth when pronouncing words, something that's part of language instruction. She demanded to sit at the back of the room, with her back to the other students, because three males were in the class. Later, she insisted the men move even farther away from her.

For one-on-one exercises, the woman first agreed to retreat to a corner with the female instructor so she could remove part of her veil but then changed her mind when she couldn't be guaranteed that the instructor responsible for the next segment would be a woman. Another part of the course calls for students to sit around a U-shaped table and converse; the woman refused to participate because she couldn't tolerate the male students looking her in the eyes. (Ms. Ahmed has denied the allegations that she refused to work with men.)

These frictions – which exasperated the other students and disturbed the atmosphere of the class – went on for three months until the college, CEGEP de Saint-Laurent, backed by Quebec's Immigration Ministry (which finances the language classes), gave her an ultimatum: Take off the veil or quit the class. She quit, then filed a human-rights complaint against the province.

There's been a great deal of discussion in Quebec about the right to wear a veil in public institutions. The consensus among human-rights defenders is that the Islamic scarf that covers only the hair should be allowed everywhere, including in the civil service. But there's a growing school of thought, influenced by France's rigid definition of secularism, that wants to forbid civil servants who deal with the public from covering their hair – a prohibition that would certainly be intolerable in a North American pluralist society and one that would be quickly struck down by the courts. The face-covering veil, however, is another question, if only because it prevents normal human contact. Would a school allow a male student to wear a mask to hide his face?

There's also the question of security. A few weeks ago in France, two men entered a bank wearing burkas. The burka is even less revealing than the niqab because the eyes are hidden behind a fabric grill. A bank employee, assuming the two potential clients were women, let them in. But the duo had guns under their robes and held up the bank.

In Quebec, most agreed with the decision to expel the niqab-wearing woman, including constitutional lawyer Julius Grey, who has defended the right of inmates to smoke in prison and the right of Sikh students to wear ceremonial daggers in class. “Accommodation should not lead to separation,” he said.

Yolande Geadah, an Egyptian-born writer, said: “There is no possible compromise with people with such inflexible attitudes.” Raheel Raza, a Pakistani-born Muslim women's rights activist, said: “When we come to Canada, we're not coming to the Islamic Republic of Canada.”

The irony is that, last fall, Egypt's top Islamic cleric said students and teachers at Cairo's Al-Azhar University would not be allowed to wear face veils in classrooms and dorms on the grounds they had “nothing to do with Islam.” The education ministry later barred the niqab during exams, to prevent students from sending others to take the tests. Although an Egyptian court subsequently ordered a stay on the Al-Azhar ban and overturned the education ministry's decision, we have to ask ourselves: Should Canadian colleges be more tolerant of Islamic fundamentalism than Cairo's universities?
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Mar 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Beyond the pale on the veil
> ...
> The irony is that, last fall, Egypt's top Islamic cleric said students and teachers at Cairo's Al-Azhar University would not be allowed to wear face veils in classrooms and dorms on the grounds they had “nothing to do with Islam.” The education ministry later barred the niqab during exams, to prevent students from sending others to take the tests ...




And that's the issue: this is NOT a religious matter; it is a socio-cultural matter.

Women are required to be veiled because, and only because, in patriarchal societies, like the ones they or their parents or even grandparents left behind, women are _property_ and men - husbands, fathers even brothers - have a right to control access to their property. That may be an acceptable socio-cultural norm in Saudi Arabia it is not in Canada and it must not be allowed to become a Canadian value.

Most Muslims, sadly, do not understand what their religion _requires_ and what (most things) it _ignores_; in that they are like most Christians. But ignorance, despite the evidence provided by the majority, is not a Canadian socio-cultural value.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Apr 2010)

Of course, if basic values are corrupted within the establishment, there is little reason to complain about other's values:

http://wcollier.blogspot.com/2010/04/capitulation-at-lsu.html



> *Capitulation at LSU*
> 
> From USA Today:
> 
> ...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (1 May 2010)

I see a lot of emails go around and there are an awful lot that unfortunately look more like racism than actual concern for our culture or society.  However, this one did come around not too long ago:

Subject:  Bedfordshire Police Rules Regarding Terrorists And Dangerous Criminals

Got this from my friend in England.......................You will not believe this one . . . . . . .What we have to do.Vote this insane demented Labour government OUT! The damage they have done to Britain is making our lives worse and our reputation as a nation is quickly disappearing. No-one should be above the law or get special treatment. It should of course be one law for all. Religion should never even come in to it. Please do pass this on.

Bedfordshire Police's rules regarding terrorists and dangerous criminals

If they're non-Muslim
. Consider the most opportune time of day to be able to arrest  suspects with minimum resistance . Apply all necessary force to enter the premises
and arrest suspects  accordingly.

If they're Muslim:
. Community leaders must be consulted before raids into Muslim houses.
. Officers must not search occupied bedrooms and bathrooms before dawn.
. Use of police dogs will be considered serious desecration of the premises.
. Cameras and camcorders should not be used in case capturing women in inappropriate dress . If people are praying at home officers should stand aside and not  disrupt the prayer. They should be allowed the opportunity to finish . Officers should take their shoes off before raiding a Muslim house.
. The reasons for pre-dawn raids on Muslim houses needs to be clear and transparent.
. Officers must not touch holy books or religious artifacts without permission.
. Muslim prisoners should be allowed to take additional clothing to the station.

With this continuing appeasement, no wonder it's now predicted that Britain will become an Islamic state by 2070.  (Time to think about  your children.)

Now, I just figured that it was just another hokey email and that it couldn't possibly be true ---->  [delete]  However, my sister (who is also a LEO) decided to actually pursue it and contact the named department:



-----Original Message-----
From: My sister Sent: 19 April 2010 00:05
To: Force Control
Subject: Bedfordshire Police Rules Regarding Terrorists And Dangerous Criminals]


Hi there - I got this e-mail and I was wondering if it was true.

                        Thank you -
                                [My sister]


This is the unedited (except where I took out names) response she got back from them: 


Sent: Mon, April 19, 2010 2:39:56 PM
Subject: [Fwd: FW: Bedfordshire Police Rules Regarding Terrorists And Dangerous Criminals]]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: FW: Bedfordshire Police Rules Regarding Terrorists And Dangerous
Criminals]
From:    "[name removed by me]@Bedfordshire.pnn.police.uk>
Date:    Mon, April 19, 2010 3:18 am
To:     [My sister]--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Ms ZZZ
Thank you for your email.
I would like to reassure you that the message you have seen regarding Bedfordshire Police policy on entering households - Muslim or otherwise -
is incorrect. It has though generated lots of enquiries to our force and is clearly doing the rounds! Bedfordshire Police does have a policy for entering all households adopted by many police forces from guidance from the National Community Tension Team, and is not therefore peculiar only to our force.
The correct version of our policy, summarised below, deals with some basic considerations when entering Muslim households, especially for pre-planned
operations.
* Innocent occupants of a household such as women and children may be present and Police should never under-estimate the impact of any loss of their personal dignity. Muslim women may be more flexible in their choice of dress at home amongst family members than outside and police entry could contribute to a loss of dignity. Opportunity should be afforded for occupants to cover themselves sufficiently to comply with the etiquettes of "Hijab" if a non-family member is present - and that includes the head for women.
* The same level of etiquette and respect should be observed in Muslim households as in a Muslim place of worship, such as a Mosque.
* Female officers must be available wherever practicable to deal with females and there should not be any cross gender contact by the officers.
* Muslim prisoners should be allowed to take additional clothing to the station. All clothing needs to remain pure for prayer and the denial of appropriate clothing will be a very serious issue for the individual.
*  If possible, officers should not take shoes into the houses, especially in areas that might be kept pure for prayer purposes - nor should they step on any prayer mats etc. This might be difficult in some cases but needs to be seriously considered - plastic overshoes may be an option in some cases if the cleanliness/ purity of the overshoes can be maintained. Non-Muslims are not allowed to touch Holy Books, Qurans, or religious artefacts without permission.
* In the current climate the justification for pre-dawn raids on Muslim houses needs to be clear and transparent.
* The aftercare of those not detained must be considered. Sufficient arrangements should be made to offer alternative accommodation to thosewho are removed from their homes whilst lengthy searches are carried out. If they are not removed from the house they should be allowed some flexibility and privacy.
*  Deployment of family liaison officers should be considered to minimise the impact on the families and the local community. 
This guidance, and I stress, is just that. It was written in 2005 at the time of the increased tensions following the 7/7 bombings and applies in the main to Counter Terrorism operations. The same considerations and respect for faith and diversity are always applied no matter what the belief of the household, Muslim or otherwise.
For info and completeness I have also attached an update guidance document [couldn't get it to open] which has been devised by the NCTT which assists all forces in this area
of policing.
I hope this answers your query?
Kind regards
JH
Media Relations Manager
Bedfordshire Police
Tel: 01234 84 2390
????@bedfordshire.pnn.police.uk

I have a nutty idea.  If you don't want to get raided and seen by "infidels" perhaps don't live with terrorists?  Just throwin' it out there...

So the true version is a somewhat diluted version of the original, but not entirely inaccurate.  And what is the point?  Seems to me, if this is applied mostly to TERRORISM suspects, why the hell should they be getting ANY consideration?

Albeit a UK policy, don't think that we aren't roughly 10 years behind them in the ongoing disintegration of our society.  Has it occurred to anyone else that the multiculturalism experiment isn't really working?


----------



## mariomike (1 May 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Subject:  Bedfordshire Police Rules Regarding Terrorists And Dangerous Criminals




https://www.bedfordshire.police.uk/foi/disclosure_log/documents/March%202010/Response%20Letter%202010-00207.pdf


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 May 2010)

Thanks to Margaret Wente for telling an important, indeed *vital* story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/our-daughters-in-peril/article1561203/


> Our daughters in peril
> *Forget Islamophobia, this comes down to speaking out against family violence*
> 
> Margaret Wente
> ...




This is *NOT* a religious issue and those who trot out _Islamaphobia_ are cowardly and stupid. Assault is assault and prison is the only acceptable outcome for men (and their wives) who cannot leave their *wholly and completely unacceptable cultural issues* back in the ‘old country’ where they belong. These _cultural_ issues have no place in a modern, *civilized* country like Canada. We must make it absolutely clear that we will not tolerate these _cultural_ practices here. Those who cannot conform can leave or spend years and years in our prisons. Not other alternative is acceptable.


Edit: typo


----------



## mariomike (8 May 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Thanks to Margaret Wente for telling an important, indeed *vital* story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/our-daughters-in-peril/article1561203/



Looks like the subject is a bit of a hot potato down on Front St. at the Globe:
"Comments have been disabled.:
Editor's Note: We have closed comments on this story for legal reasons. We appreciate your understanding."


----------



## GAP (8 May 2010)

Then Margaret Wente was right in her article



> Ms. Saywell was concerned that she too might be accused of Islamophobia. She was right. A short review in Now magazine (by a well-known local feminist) panned the film for being anti-Muslim. But Shahzrad Mojab, professor of women’s studies and adult education at the University of Toronto, calls it a well-documented treatment of a subject that hasn’t been taken seriously. Even though the stereotyping of Muslims is a serious problem, she says, timidity in the wider community has created a culture of silence around this issue. “We don’t want to be seen as racist. We want to be nice,” she says. “But then we ignore violence.” As for Muslims, she says, “The community has to come forward and propose ways of dealing with these issues that can go beyond this film.”


----------



## karl28 (8 May 2010)

E.R. Campbell 



> This is NOT a religious issue and those who trot out Islamaphobia are cowardly and stupid. Assault is assault and prison is the only acceptable outcome for men (and their wives) who cannot leave their wholly and completely unacceptable cultural issues back in the ‘old country’ where they belong. These cultural[ issues have no place in a modern, civilized country like Canada. We must make it absolutely clear that we will not tolerate these cultural practices here. Those who cannot conform can leave or spend years and years in our prisons. Not other alternative is acceptable.



This is the best statement in regards to this sistuation I have heard in a long time .


----------



## Ex-SHAD (9 May 2010)

It's great to see a politician speaking his mind, rather than pandering to politically correct interests.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 May 2010)

Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> It's great to see a politician speaking his mind, rather than pandering to politically correct interests.




Could you point, please, to the post that leads you to believe that a _politician_ his speaking *his* mind? The closest I could find was this post, dated 25 Nov 09, but the politician in question is a her. I'm not being picky - just looking for the source of your comment.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 May 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This is *NOT* a religious issue and those who trot out _Islamaphobia_ are cowardly and stupid. Assault is assault and prison is the only acceptable outcome for men (and their wives) who cannot leave their *wholly and completely unacceptable cultural issues* back in the ‘old country’ where they belong. These _cultural_ issues have no place in a modern, *civilized* country like Canada. We must make it absolutely clear that we will not tolerate these _cultural_ practices here. Those who cannot conform can leave or spend years and years in our prisons. Not other alternative is acceptable.



Except, unfortunately, there is nothing unlawful about smacking around your wife/daughters in Canada.  Well, I suppose there is a law about that somewhere that says something to the contrary.  However, when it comes to sentencing, it might as well not be against the law.  You can pretty much do a really good job of punching out your wife about every two years and still only ever get probation for it.  Oh, you might <<<shudder>>> have to go to anger management counselling.  
Nope, beating our women is a white trash, tried and true Canadian pass time.  Seems to me Mr. Parvez is fitting in just fine (maybe a murder is a tad overboard).  He has gotten a nice pulse on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is getting his fill as his rights shall be paramount at his trial.    

Perhaps I'm coming off a touch cynical tonight


----------



## a_majoor (15 May 2010)

This ties back to one of the meta-themes of Samuel Huntington's book "Who Are We?", the idea that large groups of people arriving together and importing their culture are not _immigrants_ but _settlers_. Groups who actively reject North American culture, refuse to integrate or become productive citizens are indeed settlers in that sense. While this article is written by and for Americans, we face the same issues:

http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2010/05/14/the-immigration-issue-is-not-about-racism/



> *The Immigration Issue Is Not About Racism*
> 
> Posted By Phyllis Chesler On May 14, 2010 @ 11:28 am In Uncategorized | 13 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting piece on which my take is, probably, counterintuitive:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mackay-bans-imams-appearance-at-event-for-islamic-history-month/article1739319/


> MacKay bans imam’s appearance at event for Islamic History Month
> 
> STEVEN CHASE
> 
> ...




Minister MacKay is wrong. We should (almost) never pre-censor anyone. (I say almost because I’m pretty sure there are a very few exceptions to almost any rule.) I’m reasonably certain that Mr. Delic, like Mr. Elmasry, says and believes things that I regard as hateful, intellectually muddled, untrue and supportive of those who want to kill us and our soldiers. That’s no reason to shut him up; nor is it a reason to silence George Galloway or Glenn Beck. They may be wrong, they may be racists, they may be hate-mongers but that is not a reason to silence them.

If we value freedom then we must defend those who stretch it to, maybe even beyond, its very outer limits; we cannot just defend those with whom we agree - if we do the freedom and the sacrifice of those who defend freedom is meaningless. Our friends and families died to defend Delic and Elmasry, not you and me.

On the other hand we should not have ANY government sponsored religious events anywhere, at any time. If the Canadian Legion, for example, insists upon formal, religious prayers on Remembrance Day then the Government of Canada should provide zero support – readings of the Act of Remembrance and even from Ecclesiasticus can be allowed because they, including the King James version of the Christian bible, are, primarily, a huge part of our majority, cultural (Anglo) heritage.

On a broader note, “history” months (Black History, Islamic History, Gay History and so on, damned near _ad infinitum_) are a waste of rational time but if, as I suppose they do, they pacify the ignorant masses with intellectual pabulum  then they are probably here to stay.



Edit: grammar and punctuation  :-[


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2010)

This is NOT a Canadian value and, thankfully, it is not a Canadian problem - but it is an (extreme) example of what *might* happen if we ever allow religious laws* to enter our canon:






A masked and hooded person (R) canes Indonesian food seller Murni Amris for violating Islamic sharia law outside a mosque in Jantho, Aceh province. Two women were caned in Indonesia's staunchly Muslim Aceh province for selling food during the fasting hour of Ramadan, an official said. Hundreds of people gathered to watch as Murni Amris, 27, received three lashes and Rukiah Abdullah, 22, received two at a mosque in the city of Jantho, southeast of the provincial capital Banda Aceh.
_(CHAIDEER MAHYUDDIN/AFP/Getty Images)_


__________
* Not just _Sharia_ - religious _fundamentalists_ of all stripes are equally active in pushing for religious laws and they (the religious fundamentalists) are all equally reprehensible. Just consider the actions of many Christians re: e.g. abortion and gay rights.


----------



## Nauticus (2 Oct 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting piece on which my take is, probably, counterintuitive:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mackay-bans-imams-appearance-at-event-for-islamic-history-month/article1739319/
> 
> ...


While I agree the government should never support religious events at all, if they *do*, they should not support ones that can be viewed as hateful.

Mackay is right, in my opinion, to cancel this particular appearance. This does NOT mean that the government is censoring anybody, it merely means that they do not condone or endorse his or her message.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2010)

This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_ is about a guy who does share good Canadian English common law values but who is being charged with a crime anyway:

http://www.nationalpost.com/anger+Little+China/3613368/story.html


> Big anger in Little China
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Property is, according to John Locke, and ought to be, according to Stephen Harper, a _fundamental, indeed_ _natural_ right. But in Canada, post 1967, property is a bad word and despite what the cabinet might want the _bureaucracy_ will do everything in its (very considerable) power to block any attempt to craft laws that enshrine property rights.

Mr. Chen is a good, responsible Canadian; Stephen Harper, Jason Kenny, Wayne Wouters and his minions - less so.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Oct 2010)

Am I the only one who thought that article seemed to be off its Ritalin?  All over the board!  



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Property is, according to John Locke, and ought to be, according to Stephen Harper, a _fundamental, indeed_ _natural_ right. But in Canada, post 1967, property is a bad word and despite what the cabinet might want the _bureaucracy_ will do everything in its (very considerable) power to block any attempt to craft laws that enshrine property rights.
> 
> Mr. Chen is a good, responsible Canadian; Stephen Harper, Jason Kenny, Wayne Wouters and his minions - less so.



Okay, calling the Prime Minister a bad, irresponsible Canadian because he didn't just rush to expand a citizens powers of arrest as a result of one visible minority getting charged is _really_ pushing the pocket I think.  You don't get to suck and blow at the same time.  A citizens powers of arrest under CCC 494 are pretty clear and DO NOT include making arrests after they have lost contact with an offender.  Right or not, good faith or not, Mr. Chen did not have the legal authority to make an arrest.  So every single thing he did after he put his hands on the thief was unlawful.  The box cutter charge was pretty lame, unless he used it to threaten the thief.  

Don't get me wrong.  I'm a big fan of people taking ownership of their communities.  In the sage words of the ever wise Chief Clancy Wiggum: "Can't you people take the law into your own hands? I mean, we can't be policing the entire city!"  ;D  But given the MASSIVE latitude the Charter gives people to not have to be responsible for their behavior, enforced by the judges who allow all manner of idiocy to occur, what would you have our minority government do?  And you are correct when you observe that property crimes are really not against the law due to there being no actual real penalty for committing them.  Again, the laws indicate there are some decent penalties but when the judges refuse to administer them how is anyone supposed to get anything that resembles "justice"?


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Oct 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who thought that article seemed to be off its Ritalin?  All over the board!
> 
> Okay, calling the Prime Minister a bad, irresponsible Canadian because he didn't just rush to expand a citizens powers of arrest as a result of one visible minority getting charged is _really_ pushing the pocket I think ...




The debate is not about the state's exclusive _right_ to use force or a citizen's use of force and I'm not arguing for expanded powers of citizens' arrest because I don't know enough about the issue. But the debate would not even occur if we, as a society, accepted property rights. We would not have this if we acknowledged and respected property rights:





Photograph by: Handout, Maclean's

There is a demonstrable positive correlation between a nation's place on the global _transparency index_ and respect for property. It is not a question of socialism vs. capitalism; it is a question of "is one's property really ones' own?" It is more that just laws on the books - it is how they are administered and enforced, which goes far, far, far beyond judicial discretion. In fact, despite good laws and despite good law enforcement, our *failure* to respect property as a fundamental, natural right weakens us as a society.

The debate over property rights has been _hot_ since about 1982 when they failed to _make it_ into the Charter of Rights - I guess Locke wasn't sufficiently _Cartesian_ for the Charter's authors. But the debate began before that, with the rise of Marxism that, consciously, needs to suppress fundamental or natural _individual_ rights in order to further empower the biggest collective of them all, the state itself.

So the real debate is between _liberalism_ that aims to protect the sovereign individual and his natural rights from the depredations of all the collectives, including the state itself, and _illiberalism_ that aims to follow the path of least resistance towards some poorly conceived _social_ goals. Canada, despite a somewhat illiberal constitution (mainly found in the 1982 add-ons), is somewhat less _illiberal_, in practice, than is, say, the USA where, since 1933, _collectivism_ and an appalling lack of respect for private property have run rampant. But we could do better and a good first step would be to reinforce the status of _property rights_, which exist, powerfully, in the common law, in our statute laws, making property rights, once again, quite fundamental and natural - as they must be in a real _liberal_ society.


----------



## 57Chevy (3 Oct 2010)

I think Mr. Chen's trial on the forceable confinement and assault is quite the joke. They were quite civil in their actions. They did not harm the thief in any way, except for maybe his huge ego. They could have done much much worse. Instead, they waited ernestly for the 'law' to come. It makes a
whole lot of sense to me.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Oct 2010)

I will always defer to z-c on matters of law enforcement; he's the SME. The issue, for me, is not what Mr. Chen did or did not do, nor is the legality or even propriety of his actions the issue; my concern is with the _values_ his actions represent. In that domain I remain convinced that Mr. Chen's _values_ are right and those of our government are less so.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Oct 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> I think Mr. Chen's trial on the forceable confinement and assault is quite the joke. They were quite civil in their actions. They did not harm the thief in any way, except for maybe his huge ego. They could have done much much worse. Instead, they waited ernestly for the 'law' to come. It makes a
> whole lot of sense to me.



Every day I come up against the great divide between what is right and what is lawful.  It is a massive juggling act that all police have to do within themselves.  Lets face it; as the bumper sticker says, "There are a great many people that are only alive because it is against the law to kill them".  

Am I pleased that Mr. Chen took ownership of his problem and did something decisive?  Absolutely.  If there were more people like him who were willing to step up when the time of need arose, life everywhere would be better.  He did the *RIGHT* thing.  However, the law here is quite clear.  That was not a lawful arrest.  Couple that with the fact that the Toronto area appears, for all intents and purposes, to be morally bankrupt as it is, how is it you are going to ask the officer that attended to put their job and personal liability on the line when they clearly have evidence of a criminal act that occured?  The real bad guy got charged.  But guess what?  Bad guys know the law as well as I do.  When Mr. Chen grabbed that clown and used actual physical restraints on him, that useless crackhead probably had visions of dollar signs in his head.  So now the police arrive.  How can they ignore one crime and prosecute the other?  Again, we have what is right vs what is lawful.  So now the officer does what is right, ignores the fact that the bad guy got arrested unlawfully and bad guy proptly marches down to Duey, Cheetum and Howe lawfirm and sues TPS, Mr. Chen, the officer involved and the City of Toronto.  Guess who has the deep pockets?  So rather than get bogged in an expensive civil suit, the City insurance company throws $5000 at bad guy to make him go away.  

So, does the officer ignore Mr. Chen's illegal act and potentially give the POS society burden one awesome crack-week vacation or does he do what his oath of office requires him to do and enforce the law?  

At such time someone can push through some manditory sentencing guidelines for repeat property offenders or a requirement for a Crown to proceed by way of indictment at a certain point (I could name at least five people in the Windsor area that have over 70 Theft Under $5000 convictions and have NEVER been prosecuted by way of indictment) don't expect anything to change.  Don't leave your nice things lying around.


----------



## 57Chevy (4 Oct 2010)

While I agree with you ZC, I cannot see how Mr. Chens actions were illegal. What
was he supposed to do ? 
Maybe the next time it won't be someone as civil as Mr. Chen.......and no-one would ever know about
a real unlawful confinement......like chained in the basement and forced to eat bot-choy for a week
or so.
Or just outright beaten half to death.
When justice does not prevail.........then local vigilante justice grows. And in a city as you describe without morals, there would be no end to it.

As ER C mentioned the civil values of our government are way below an acceptable standard, and I
fully agree.
There is no justice.

IMO Mr. Chen should rip out all those cameras, boost his prices and hire a security guard with a big stick.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Oct 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> While I agree with you ZC, I cannot see how Mr. Chens actions were illegal. What
> was he supposed to do ?




Obviously, I will let z-c provide the full and proper answer because he is an SME, but, as I understand it, a citizen may, lawfully, 'arrest' someone during or _*immediately*_ after a crime. Mr. Chen waited too long and the police/prosecutors initially classified his actions as kidnapping. That indicates, to me, that Mr. Chen was too far away from the letter of the existing law.

Maybe as, _inter alia_, Olivia Chow (NDP) proposes in a private member's bill, the law should be amended; I'm not sure what the best _interim_ answer might be, but I am sure that the long term _solution_ must involve formally enshrining property as a fundamental, natural right - equal to life and liberty.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Oct 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> While I agree with you ZC, I cannot see how Mr. Chens actions were *illegal*. What
> was he supposed to do ?



He was "supposed" to call the police and keep an eye on the bad guy.  There is no latitude where the law is concerned:

From The Code:



> Arrest without warrant by any person
> 
> 494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant
> 
> ...



It's a no-brainer.  If you lose track of the guy, you lose your arrest authority.  After he is gone, you are no longer "finding committing".  Only a peace officer can arrest on reasonable grounds after the fact.  Once you take that lawful arrest away, everything that happens after that is unlawful.  



			
				57Chevy said:
			
		

> Maybe the next time it won't be someone as civil as Mr. Chen.......and no-one would ever know about
> a real unlawful confinement......like chained in the basement and forced to eat bot-choy for a week
> or so.



Yes, clearly the path to social justice is paved with Gimp trunks and torture dungeons  :  Perhaps you can find a clue on Kijiji?  



			
				57Chevy said:
			
		

> Or just outright beaten half to death.
> When justice does not prevail.........then local vigilante justice grows. And in a city as you describe without morals, there would be no end to it.



Okay, pitchfork lover.  What country do you live in?  People are apathetic everywhere, forget about in Toronto.  They don't seem to care about anything but catering to special interests and celebrating criminality.  



			
				57Chevy said:
			
		

> IMO Mr. Chen should rip out all those cameras, boost his prices and hire a security guard with a big stick.



Your success as a small business owner is almost guaranteed!!


----------



## 57Chevy (4 Oct 2010)

Thank you Z C , I see now "what he was supposed to do". I was unaware of that fact 494.(1)(ii)

By the way, I was just pointing out the extreme other end of the spectrum because there is no way of really telling exactly how an 'un-civilized' person could have treated the 'thief' when finally he could get his hands on him. I was not implying on any manner of treatment. So I'm not a pitchfork lover ;D

Mr. Chen acted in a civilized manner and with respect to persons......He did what he thought was the right thing to do.
And obviously he was completely ignorant of any possibility of being arrested for his actions.
If he was aware........His actions would have been different and within the law......so the charges against him should be quashed.

My wife had a small bussiness.......And I remember correctly.....When she got "ripped off" for one of her leather purses, She got really "pissed off".  :nod:
Made good money just the same ;D


----------



## Strike (4 Oct 2010)

Has anyone read any of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's books?  Here is an immigrant basically espousing what the title of the thread is.  Some very good reading.  My only complaint would be references to the verses she talks about in the Qu'ran.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2010)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali does, indeed, tell a compelling story. She has abandoned Islam because, I think, the _fundamentalist_ version to which she was exposed is out of step with the aspirations of many (most?) people. Like many apostates, she tends to paint her old religions in the darkest possible terms and her new _civilization_ in the brightest. See, e.g. here and here






Ayaan Hirsi Ali Photograph: Chris Buck
_The Guardian_


For an interesting counterpoint one might try Canadian Muslim _reformer_ and self styled _Muslim refusenik_ Irshad Manji; see e.g. here.





Irshad Manji. Photograph by Danielle St. Laurent 2007


If you are going to read either or both may I also suggest: Bernard Lewis, a scholar with nearly a half century of deep study of Islam to his credit. He, Lewis, is also a rare bird: a clear, concise writer.

You could do worse than starting with Islam: The Religion and the People and, especially, The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror. The latter book, in my opinion, belongs on most soldiers' bookshelves.

Also, see, e.g. here.


In the interests of _objectivity_ and _equality_:





Bernard Lewis. (Princeton University)


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is more fuel for the fire:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/multiculturalism/canadas-changing-faith/article1741422/


> Canada's changing faith
> 
> JOE FRIESEN AND SANDRA MARTIN
> 
> ...




OK, my, personal, views, again:

1.	Religion is a *private* matter – between you and your gods. It is no business of the state. Theocracies and even ‘established’ religions are socio-political abominations and ought never to be tolerated by thinking people. That includes, by the way, the Dalai Lama’s dream of some sort of a benign Buddhist theocracy for Tibet – it, like every other theocracy, is a bad idea.

2.	Freedom of religion, for you, means freedom _from_ religion for me. Your freedoms of belief and expression do not extend to attempting to influence my beliefs. You may oppose or support whatever social _institutions_ you wish – gay marriage, abortion, genital mutilation – in private, and, to the degree that you do not intrude into my _private_ space, and public. Caution: If you want to support some _cultural_ practices – like forcing women to wear burqas or to endure female circumcision then you may run afoul of the law before you offend me.

3.	Religion ≠ culture. You are welcome to your religion – or not. Your religion, within some sensible bounds, is welcome here in Canada; we do not even make your temple or whatever pay property taxes. Your culture might not be quite so welcome; in fact it might be unwelcome and ‘we’ – almost all Canadians – may demand that you leave some of it behind; we might not even tolerate some cultural practices in the privacy of your own home because they (those cultural practices) harm others.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (7 Oct 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> He was "supposed" to call the police and keep an eye on the bad guy.  There is no latitude where the law is concerned:
> 
> From The Code:
> 
> ...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Oct 2010)

Not so easy being a witness, is it ya dirtbag? :crybaby:

Friggin' hilarious.......



Thief feared for life, vigilante grocer trial hears

By MICHELE MANDEL, Toronto Sun
Last Updated: October 6, 2010 8:15pm


The plant thief thought he was going to court to put away the “vigilante grocer” who dared to apprehend him and tie him up rather than let him get away again.

Instead, Anthony Bennett was astonished to discover that rather than eliciting sympathy, he was the one on the hot seat Wednesday in the grand Old City Hall courtroom.
“I’m the victim here,” the confused career criminal complained at one point.

It seems everyone else agrees — save the prosecutor and police — the true victim, in fact, is shopkeeper David Chen, who decided to stop the brazen thief who was about to rob his Lucky Moose Food Mart in Chinatown for the second time in two hours.
Chen and two relatives have pleaded not guilty to forcible confinement and assault after making what they believed was a citizen’s arrest on May 23, 2009.

To their surprise — and that of the entire city — the men were hauled into court because the 52-year-old Bennett had shoplifted the plants from the Dundas Ave. W. store an hour before they detained him and wasn’t caught in the act as required by the law.
But the Crown’s unpopular case suffered a serious blow when their star witness admitted for the first time under dogged questioning by defence lawyer Peter Lindsay that he had indeed returned to the scene of the crime that day to pinch more of Chen’s plants.

“By confronting you, he stopped you from stealing more plants and protected his property, correct,” Lindsay demanded.
“That’s correct,” Bennett conceded.

Yet he insisted Chen had no right to then chase him down and hold him for police when he decided to run off.
“I didn’t tell him to friggin’ tie me up and friggin’ throw me in the back of a van,” the slight, balding man yelled indignantly. “It was plants, man. I didn’t go there and rob him with a gun.”

Wiping his brow, kneading his face, Bennett grew increasingly belligerent as the defence lawyer deftly outlined his 30-year-long rap sheet with 43 convictions that included dozens for theft, as well as trafficking in drugs and uttering threats against another shopkeeper.
“That’s your intention, to embarrass me, correct?” the heroin and crack addict said, imitating Lindsay’s questioning style. “What does this got to do with these people tying me up?”

A bemused Justice Ramez Khawly repeatedly urged him to calm down. “Take a deep breath,” the Ontario court judge advised him. “You’re a bit of a hothead.”
To which Bennett said plaintively, “I just want to go home.”
Well, too bad, so sad — for this was the bargain he made.

In return for this testimony — as uncomfortable as it was — the well-known cycling shoplifter pleaded guilty last year to stealing the $60 worth of plants from the Lucky Moose and received a sweetheart deal of 30 days in jail instead of a proposed three months.
But he turned out to be the Crown witness from hell.

Bennett couldn’t identify two of the three men on trial and admitted he lied to police when he told them that he’d never stolen anything from the Lucky Moose and might have been targeted just because he was black.
“I just felt like I was going to be carried away somewhere,” Bennett told the court. “At that point I was in fear for my life, to be perfectly honest.”

His script went awry, though, when asked about the injuries he suffered in this supposedly terrifying apprehension.
The best he could come up with was a swollen left thumb. At the time, he told police that it was his left index finger.

Bennett denied trying to break free from his captors and insisted that any bruises Chen may have suffered must have been “self-inflicted.”
“I didn’t touch nobody,” Bennett hissed.

The career shoplifter must have thought he was going to get sympathy for what the “vigilante grocer” allegedly put him through.
Instead, the low-life unrepentant thief was so enraging that he helped make Chen even more of a hero for being so restrained.

The trial continues.

Read Mandel Wednesday through Saturday.
michele.mandel@sunmedia.ca or 416-947-2231


----------



## 57Chevy (7 Oct 2010)

:rofl: good article

 :alarm: A sign of justice for Mr.Chen


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Oct 2010)

Good to hear the trial is going south.  Crackheads are always hilarious when they try to talk around real people.  

Just a quick clarification AF:



> Shoplifting is not considered as an indictable offence, therefore, citizens arrest [S494(1)] does not apply. Chen does have a right under S 494 (2):



I think what you are referring to is Theft Under $5000.  It is a dual procedure offence, meaning it can be summary or indictable.  It is up to the Crown how they will proceed.  For the purposes of arrest, dual procedure offences are considered indictable.  However, I have never heard of someone being charged by way of indictment for Theft Under.


----------



## mariomike (11 Oct 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Good to hear the trial is going south.  Crackheads are always hilarious when they try to talk around real people.



Oct. 11, 2010 
"Chinatown plant thief back in jail: Anthony Bennett is back in jail, once again accused of stealing plants from a Chinese merchant in Toronto’s downtown.":
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/chinatown-plant-thief-back-in-jail/article1752002/?cmpid=rss1


----------



## Retired AF Guy (12 Oct 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Good to hear the trial is going south.  Crackheads are always hilarious when they try to talk around real people.
> 
> Just a quick clarification AF:
> 
> I think what you are referring to is Theft Under $5000.  It is a dual procedure offence, meaning it can be summary or indictable.  It is up to the Crown how they will proceed.  For the purposes of arrest, dual procedure offences are considered indictable.  However, I have never heard of someone being charged by way of indictment for Theft Under.



Thanks for your clarification.


----------



## 57Chevy (29 Oct 2010)

Good to hear  :nod:

Toronto shopkeeper cleared in citizen’s arrest case:

TORONTO — Charges against a Toronto shopkeeper, accused of detaining and assaulting a shoplifter last summer, were dropped Friday.

In May 2009, David Chen, the co-owner of a Chinatown district shop, chased down a man whom he had captured on security video stealing plants from the store earlier in the day. He then captured the man by tying his hands and placing him in a van.

"It is impossible for me to say that I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt" of Chen's guilt, Justice Ramez Khawly told the court.

"The only conclusion I come to is that I have a reasonable doubt. All such doubts must resolve in favour of the defence. All charges against you are dismissed."

article continues
 Mr. Chen 

                           (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Oct 2010)

About time there was a victory for the victims of crime.  I am sick to death of the dirtbags getting all the beaks from the system.  It is about time justice gave a damn for the others.  And the Supreme Court of Canada also allowed a woman from Quebec to sue the Catholic Church as well after a lower court ruled that she waited beyond 3 years to file.  A good day for my spirits overall.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Oct 2010)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> About time there was a victory for the victims of crime.  I am sick to death of the dirtbags getting all the beaks from the system.  It is about time justice gave a damn for the others.  And the Supreme Court of Canada also allowed a woman from Quebec to sue the Catholic Church as well after a lower court ruled that she waited beyond 3 years to file.  A good day for my spirits overall.


Agreed, 100%!  A good day for the good guys!

(But I must admit, I find your signature block inflammatory.  "Religion makes you fly planes into buildings" makes my skin crawl.  I would argue that racism and hubris does that to you, but I digress).


----------



## zipperhead_cop (10 Nov 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> TORONTO — Charges against a Toronto shopkeeper, accused of detaining and assaulting a shoplifter last summer, were dropped  Friday.



A minor annoyance.  The charges were not _dropped_.  He was found not guilty.  That is better than them being dropped.  Glad it worked out for Mr. Chen


----------



## GAP (14 Nov 2010)

Islamist groups seek ‘parallel society’ in Canada: report
Article Link
Stewart Bell, National Post · Saturday, Nov. 13, 2010

TORONTO — A newly released intelligence report says hardline Islamist groups want to build a “parallel society” in Canada, which could undermine the country’s social cohesion and foster violence.

The de-classified Intelligence Assessment obtained by the National Post says extremists have been encouraging Muslims in the West to reject Western society and to live in “self-imposed isolation.” The report focuses on groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which do not advocate terrorist violence but promote an ideology at odds with core Western values.

“Even if the use of violence is not outwardly expressed, the creation of isolated communities can spawn groups that are exclusivist and potentially open to messages in which violence is advocated,” it says. “At a minimum, the existence of such mini-societies undermines resilience and the fostering of a cohesive Canadian nation.”

The report was written by the Integrated Threat Assessment Centre, which monitors threats to Canada’s national security and is composed of representatives of CSIS, the RCMP, Foreign Affairs, National Defence and other agencies.

It was circulated internally last year after Hizb-ut-Tahrir invited Muslims to a conference in Mississauga, Ont., to discuss the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. A copy of the document was recently released under the Access to Information Act.

“While the issue of violence by Islamist groups has continued to be a counter-terrorism priority for Western governments and particularly security services for many years, Islamist social ideology appears to have gone unstudied, precisely because the use of violence is either unsupported or understated,” it says. “Nevertheless, several Islamist movements advocate a rejection of Western society and mores, and encourage self-imposed isolation of Muslims in the West.”

It says Islamists believe that Islam should govern all aspects of society and that Sharia law and state law should be “synchronized.” Extremists forced to flee Muslim-majority countries such as Egypt now preach these beliefs in the West, it says, adding, “By definition, their world views clash with secular ones. A competition for the hearts and minds of the diaspora Muslims has hence begun.”
More on link


----------



## George Wallace (14 Nov 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Islamist groups seek ‘parallel society’ in Canada: report
> Article Link
> ............hardline Islamist groups want to build a “parallel society” in Canada, which could undermine the country’s social cohesion and foster violence.
> 
> ...





Why do they come to the West if they are not tolerant to the ways of the West?   Conspiracy theorists would say that it is a means for Islam to gain world domination through infiltration of other societies.


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Nov 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Why do they come to the West if they are not tolerant to the ways of the West?   Conspiracy theorists would say that it is a means for Islam to gain world domination through infiltration of other societies.



And there's a pretty decent chance they may be right.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Nov 2010)

Who is going to mention the Long Gun Registry first?   Oppps!  Guess that was me.   >


----------



## medicineman (14 Nov 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Why do they come to the West if they are not tolerant to the ways of the West?



Because our Constitution would give them the backing to say and do as they please (within limits) - they've been slung out of places somewhat less permissive than ours is, so here they come.

MM


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Nov 2010)

This is unacceptable and our politicians and courts should send that message, loud and clear.


----------



## HavokFour (14 Nov 2010)

This is rather saddening. Just another example of how "multiculturalism" will be the end of us.

Someone needs to stand up an say "This is _our_ country. You need to learn about, and respect _our_ values and integrate into _our_ society. If you don't like it why are you still here? Don't let the door hit your rear on the way out".

Makes me want to go into politics honestly.

EDIT: To add to this, Sharia law has absolutely NO place anywhere in the West. We should not grant people special privileges to impose religious driven laws that circumvent our own. Again, this is _our_ country.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Nov 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> This is unacceptable and our politicians and courts should send that message, loud and clear.



I agree.  It is time our government developed some cahones.


----------



## HavokFour (14 Nov 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> This is unacceptable and our politicians and courts should send that message, loud and clear.



I'd go as far as to say the people should have a an all out revolt, something similar to the Tea Party to the south. The Government works for _us_ after all.


----------



## gun runner (14 Nov 2010)

" The de-classified Intelligence Assessment obtained by the National Post says extremists have been encouraging Muslims in the West to reject Western society and to live in “self-imposed isolation.” The report focuses on groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which do not advocate terrorist violence but promote an ideology at odds with core Western values."


I would have to say that based on what I had read, the Muslim community in Canada has been encouraged by outside influences to perform these ideas for what? To see if our society will cumble under the sandal of some radical group? Nonsense. It is our core beliefs and values in our society that will keep our society together. My :2c:. Ubique


----------



## Nemo888 (15 Nov 2010)

This is rather old news. It is common in the hardliner community to get a wife who does not speak English and keep her at home without TV so she cannot learn our ways. The countries of origin change as the years go by. They sponsor them for citizenship as a spouse, but I always thought this was their weakness. Make the spouses pass a test to earn their full citizenship by learning about our laws(especialy divorce law), language and culture.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Nov 2010)

See my comments here.


----------



## 57Chevy (15 Nov 2010)

A short video regarding the alarmingly low fertility rate of Western societies compared to Islam.
Muslims Are Taking Over The World at an ALARMING Rate - MUSLIM IMMIGRATION


----------



## George Wallace (15 Nov 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> A short video regarding the alarmingly low fertility rate of Western societies compared to Islam.
> [



Unable to view the video at this time, but I would like to add that this is not an Islam vs West problem.  Lower birthrates in the West are more attributed to the economic situation of the population than the religious.  No matter where you go in the world, you are likely to find that the poor have higher numbers of children than the rich.  To say that Islam or any religion has a higher fertility rate than Western religions is a red herring.  We only have to look at places such as India to see the statistics to back up the poverty vs rich claim.


----------



## Journeyman (15 Nov 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> Makes me want to go into politics honestly.


I can't imagine much of a political future if you're going in honestly   ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Nov 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Why do they come to the West if they are not tolerant to the ways of the West?



Same reason we dropped commandos behind enemy lines in WW2


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Nov 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I can't imagine much of a political future if you're going in honestly   ;D




*rimshot*  Hey-ooooooooo!  You are correct, sir!


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Nov 2010)

> " The de-classified Intelligence Assessment obtained by the National Post says extremists have been encouraging Muslims in the West to reject Western society and to live in “self-imposed isolation.” The report focuses on groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which do not advocate terrorist violence but promote an ideology at odds with core Western values."



The de-classified Intelligence Assessment obtained by the National Post says extremists have been encouraging Quebecers to reject Canadian society and to live in “self-imposed isolation.” The report focuses on groups such as the Parti québécois and Bloc Québécois, which do not advocate terrorist violence but promote an ideology at odds with core Canadian values.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Nov 2010)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The de-classified Intelligence Assessment obtained by the National Post says extremists have been encouraging Quebecers to reject Canadian society and to live in “self-imposed isolation.” The report focuses on groups such as the Parti québécois and Bloc Québécois, which do not advocate terrorist violence but promote an ideology at odds with core Canadian values.



Such is the country that WE have allowed this to become.


----------



## mariomike (15 Nov 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Such is the country that WE have allowed this to become.



Reminds me of the old political saying, "Someday they are going to get good government, and they are not going to like it."


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Nov 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Such is the country that WE have allowed this to become.



We truly have the government we deserve.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (15 Nov 2010)

Definitely pot stirring here but don't we already have religious _ extremists_  isolating themselves and rejecting western ways.

Otherwise known as the Mennonites, Hutterites, Dukobhours... etc.


----------



## GAP (15 Nov 2010)

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> Definitely pot stirring here but don't we already have religious _ extremists_  isolating themselves and rejecting western ways.
> 
> Otherwise known as the Mennonites, Hutterites, Dukobhours... etc.



The Mennonites (who are not isolationist) and the  Hutterites (who are isolationist) completely abide by Canada's laws. I work with both communities and neither would dream of not abiding by the laws of the land....use them. ;D....yeah, break them....no. 

The Dukobhours I can't comment on...


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Dec 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is more fuel for the fire:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/multiculturalism/canadas-changing-faith/article1741422/
> 
> ...




Today is, for many Muslims, the beginning of ten days of mourning in remembrance of the _martyrdom_ of Imam Hussein, the grandson of Prophet Mohammed. It is especially important to Shi'ite Muslims. I found these three photos, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and mail_, interesting and they made me wonder how much we might 'tolerate' some religious expression in Canada.






A Pakistani Shiite Muslim boy flagellates himself with knifes during a Muharram procession in Lahore, Pakistan.
K.M. Chaudary/AP





A Shi'ite Muslim walks on fire at a ceremony during the Ashura festival at a mosque in central Yangon, Myanmar.
Soe Zeya Tun/REUTERS





A man covered in mud stands near a fire to dry himself during the Ashura religious festival in Khorramabad, 491 km southwest of Tehran.
MORTEZA NIKOUBAZL/REUTERS


And yes, I'm well aware of the Christian practice of _mortification of the flesh_ that persists into the 21st century. I am neither condemning nor condoning anything in any religion.


----------



## 57Chevy (29 Jan 2011)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Glad it worked out for Mr. Chen



Mr. Chen is back in the news.
And this time the government is stepping in to introduce legislation that would give
ordinary citizens more powers to make arrests.
Article:Tories to make controversial updates to citizen arrest law

                                (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Feb 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Mr. Chen is back in the news.


And so's the chap he arrested - again:


> A Kensington Market fruit store owner wants Anthony Bennett - languishing in jail again after an alleged shoplifting incident - banned from the area for three years.
> 
> Bennett, 52 - a career petty criminal who seems to have chosen plants as the focus of his shoplifting - is becoming a pariah in the Chinatown and Kensington areas.
> 
> ...





			
				57Chevy said:
			
		

> And this time the government is stepping in to introduce legislation that would give
> ordinary citizens more powers to make arrests.
> Article:Tories to make controversial updates to citizen arrest law
> (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


And here we are:


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced the introduction of The Citizen’s Arrest and Self-Defence Act. The legislation will expand the circumstances in which citizens’ arrests can be made, and streamline and simplify the self–defence and defence of property provisions in the Criminal Code.
> 
> “Our Government is committed to putting real criminals behind bars. Canadians who have been the victim of a crime should not be re-victimized by the criminal justice system. That’s why we have introduced changes to the Criminal Code so Canadians know they have the law on their side and that our justice system targets criminals and not victims.”
> 
> ...



More in the backgrounder here.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Feb 2011)

Here's Bill C-60, as presented for first reading in the House of Commons yesterday.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 May 2011)

Reviving necrothread with link to new Library of Parliament paper, "Legislative Summary of Bill C-60:
The Citizen’s Arrest and Self-defence Act" (with a bit of discussion on how they deal with this issue in Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom) here.  You can track where the Bill's at here.


----------



## GAP (5 Jul 2011)

This seemed like the best thread to put this in.....


Australia's New South Wales police get new burka powers
Article Link
 5 July 2011 Last updated at 04:37 ET

Police in Australia's New South Wales state have been given more powers to remove burkas and other face coverings to identify crime suspects.

Anyone who refuses to show their face could now be jailed for up to a year or face a heavy fine.

The move follows the recent case of a Muslim woman who was acquitted after a judge ruled her Islamic veil made a positive identification impossible.

Islamic leaders in the state said they were comfortable with the new measure.

However, civil liberty groups expressed concern that the police were being given powers they did not need.
'Clarity and certainty'

The government of Australia's most populous state approved the changes at a meeting late on Monday.
map

"I don't care whether a person is wearing a motorcycle helmet, a burka, niqab, face veil or anything else, the police should be allowed to require those people to make their identification clear," Premier Barry O'Farrell said.

He added: "I have every respect for various religions and beliefs but when it comes to enforcing the law the police should be given adequate powers to make a clear identification."

Anyone in New South Wales who refuses to remove their face covering could now be fined A$5,500 (£3,672, $5,882) or put in prison for a year.

State police welcomed the change, saying it would "provide clarity and certainty for both the public and for police officers".

The Islamic Council of New South Wales said it accepted the move, while the Muslim Women's Association said it had no problem if police handled the issue sensitively, including the deployment of female police officers.

The changes come after the high-profile case of Carnita Matthews, who last year was sentenced to six months in prison for falsely accusing a policeman of trying to forcibly remove her burka during a random breath test.

But she won on appeal after a judge ruled that the prosecution could not prove she had made the false complaint because officers were not able to see her face.

State police previously had the power to request the removal of face veils while investigating serious offences, but not on more routine matters.

The Western Australian state government is now also considering introducing similar legislation, the BBC's Phil Mercer in Sydney reports. 
end


----------



## toyotatundra (6 Jul 2011)

I can't say I was impressed by the original interview with this Australian politician. 

Whether it was integrating the Irish a 100 years ago, or the Muslims today, there have always been serious difficulties when cultures meet and clash.

I agree that there are radical Islamists who abuse the freedoms they enjoy here in the West. And there are obviously imams who would happily replace our democracy with theocratic tyranny. At the same time, we should be leery of Western politicians who frequently discuss immigration-related problems. Exploiting ethnic differences has long been a path to power for the shameless and opportunistic.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Sep 2011)

An aspect not always considered is when foreign organizations attempt to subvert our institutions. This article is about ACORN, but during the last federal election an offshoot of moveon.org called Avaaz was active in Canada trying to influence the election:

http://walkersunknownthoughts.blogspot.com/2011/09/acorn-in-canada.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FwVPTZ+%28The+Blog+of+Walker%29



> *ACORN in Canada*
> Occasional correspondent Andrew Phillips has written a very interesting piece on his site about the potential role that the American organization ACORN is playing in domestic politics:
> 
> On September 11, 2009 Seth Richardson wrote in the Colorado Springs Gazette that if you wanted a child prostitute you should call Wade Rathke and ACORN. FOX News on September 14, 2009 ran an article detailing the same efforts in Brooklyn, New York you can also watch the video here at CNN Politics . By October 5, 2009 Vicki McClure Davidson writing at the Frugal Café Blog Zone would report that a warrant would be issued against Wade Rathke for embezzling upwards of 5 million dollars from the Louisiana Chapter. However Mark Hemingway writing at over at the Washington Examiner points out that the Obama Justice Department shutdown an FBI investigation in ACORN where it appears there was a great deal of evidence showing corruption that was national in scope. A situation that still is ongoing asJudicial Watch points out in April of this year .
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2011)

Without further comment:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/10/21/kevin-libin-a-question-of-loyalty/



> *Kevin Libin: A question of loyalty*
> 
> Tim Fraser for National Post
> Outspoken author and former politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali challenges the long-standing Canadian approach to multiculturalism.
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (2 Nov 2011)

And in The Food for Thought department, the Ottawa Sun reports that a recent survey indicates strong support for Al-Qaida and Shariah law among Muslims living in Canada. The story in reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act. Note that (a) it is somewhat dated as the data were collected in 2008 and (b) it was conducted among the Muslim population of Ottawa.

Strong support for Shariah in Canada 


By Kris Sims,Parliamentary Bureau

 First posted: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 07:43 PM EDT | Updated: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:54 PM EDT


OTTAWA - A newly released survey suggests a large number of Muslims living in Canada will not disown Al-Qaida.

The study, conducted by the MacDonald Laurier Institute, found 65% of Muslims questioned said they would “repudiate absolutely” the terrorist organization, while 35% would not do so.

“From a security perspective, it is difficult to know if a 65% rate of repudiation (of Al-Qaida) is re-assuring or a 35% failure to repudiate troubling,” wrote study authors Christian Leuprecht, associate professor of the Royal Military College of Canada and Conrad Winn, Carleton University professor and president of COMPAS, a public opinion research firm.

“The most radical political views tended to be expressed by relatively secular people, often equipped with higher education in the social sciences, while devout Muslims were sometimes the most articulate advocates for Canada and democracy.” According to the Ottawa based think tank, only a small minority of Muslim newcomers to Canada reject Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Iranian regime.

The survey, which was released Tuesday, found 62% wanted some form of Shariah law in Canada, 15% of them saying it should be mandatory for all Muslims.

The report also states support for extremism is just as high among Muslims born in Canada, or other Western countries, as it is among those hailing from oppressive dictatorships.

The survey involved phone interviews with 455 Muslims in Ottawa, between May and July 2008, with a margin of error of five percentage points. The study was funded by the University of Maryland for the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. The institute could not find funding for the study in Canada.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Nov 2011)

There is, *is*, not just appears to be, a fundamental disconnect between religious Islam* and the secular West, demonstrated in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/fire-damages-office-of-french-newspaper-after-it-invites-mohammed-as-guest-editor/article2222213/


> French newspaper office torched after latest edition mocks sharia law
> 
> SUSAN SACHS
> PARIS— From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> ...




_Idolatry_ is not just a problem for Muslims; Jews and some Protestant Christians also 'forbid' various forms of 'representation' of people or things.

Religious _belief_ is a powerful thing which is not confined to Islam; consider, if you have attended a Christian service recently, that at some point, usually during the biblical 'lessons,' the priest/minister/celebrant/_whatever_ says (something like) "This is the Word of the Lord." He believes it, too - at least he's supposed and so is the congregation meant to believe that the god being worshiped, the creator heaven of earth, of all that is known and (as yet) unknown, during a visit to one small, backward corner of our planet, said some specific words which someone else took down, like a stenographer.

But the Western branch of _Christendom_ did a 'rethink', about 500 years ago, of all that, and some segments concluded that _beliefs_ might require some reinterpretation. From this root there grew a healthy tree of skepticism, maybe even _enlightenment_ - depending on how you interpret that word - and a _tradition_ of questioning of _fundamentals_ that grew a branch called satire.

Islam is not an _enlightened_ religion; it _tolerates_ nothing that is not explicitly permitted by its god and that god's prophet. Thus a religious Muslim *must* enforce the "truth," the "Word of the Lord," against blasphemy (AKA satire and/or free expression). Despite their professed abhorrence of violence, _"Leaders of Muslim organizations also denounced it while appealing for sensitivity to Islam’s prohibition against portraying the Prophet."_ This is a quite fundamental divide. A _liberal_, secular Western society *cannot* force "sensitivity" on its peoples - were any Western society to try to force sensitivity of, say, Islamic beliefs on its own satirists then it would cease to be _Western_ or _liberal_ or even _secular_ in any meaningful sense of those words.

So what to do?

For me, from my perch far from the fray, the answer is simple: allow, even encourage the satirists - even the abominable and terminally unfunny "22 Minutes" gang; _protect_ them and their premises; but _challenge_ them to be _ecumenical_ in their satire - satirists who are afraid to tackle a subject or person or group are not satirists; find the arsonists and bomb throwers and lock them up for as long as the law allows; challenge religious leaders to adapt or tell us, honestly and forthrightly,  that they are our enemies  and that they want to destroy our society and replace it with theirs.


__________
* I am happy to concede that there is, also, a _secular_ Islam which pays no attention to the _fundamentalist_ views of _religious_ Islam. I think the adherents of _secular_ Islam wants to lives their lives and raise their families in the same way that most Christians do in the secular West - with religious tolerance for their *private[/i][p/b] beliefs, which they want to keep to themselves, not to impose on others.*


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Dec 2011)

From a Kingston Imam's blog:


> *Muslim Community’s Call to Action to Eradicate Domestic Violence*
> 
> For the first time, over 80 Canadian Muslim organizations, imams and community leaders have signed on to a call for action against domestic violence. Read it here.
> 
> This is much more than a statement. This is a commitment to work towards eradicating domestic violence and “honour” killings.



I've attached the Call to Action - an excerpt:


> .... There is no room within these teachings for any person, by virtue of gender or position within the family, to seize control over the life and bodily security of another. Domestic violence and, in the extreme, practices such as killing to “restore family honour” violate clear and non-negotiable Islamic principles, and so we categorically condemn all forms of domestic violence .... As a first step, starting immediately and specifically on December 9, we commit ourselves to addressing this issue at all levels, including and especially within our Friday sermons, which must highlight Islamic perspectives on domestic abuse, perspectives that condemn all forms of violence against women and children, most especially threatening, abusing, and killing women in the name of protecting the family’s honour. As Muslims and as Canadians, we stand with all Canadians and pledge to combat domestic violence in all its manifestations, wherever and whenever they arise ....



More from the _National Post_, the _Globe & Mail_,  the _Toronto Star_,  and OnIslam.net.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Dec 2011)

Great minds think alike, or fools seldomn differ - take your pick.  

Here goes - Its about time the Muslim community condemned the practice of so called "honour killings" and domestic violence including keeping women housebound (we used to call it "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen" not too long ago). 
Having said that, every other religious group - Christians, Buddhists, Satanists, agnoistics, atheists or whatever - should applaud this announcement and follow suit with their own statements about domestic violence.


----------



## 57Chevy (6 Dec 2011)

Quote 
"As Muslims and as Canadians, we stand with all Canadians"

And that is the way it should be for all nationalities who make Canada their new home.
Accordingly,
The Oath of Citizenship, or Citizenship Oath is a statement recited and signed by candidates who wish to become citizens of Canada. Administered at a ceremony presided over by assigned officers, the oath is a promise or declaration of fealty to the Canadian monarch and a promise to abide by Canada's laws and customs; upon signing the oath, citizenship is granted to the signer.

I'm glad to see they call for action and hopefully their commitment will not go unnoticed,
because domestic violence in this country is a growing problem right across the board.

Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile (dated 2009)
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/110127/dq110127a-eng.htm

Domestic Violence and the Canadian Law
(check the Power and Control Wheel here)
http://www.changingways.on.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=104&Itemid=128

The Power & Control wheel illustrates that power and control are at the heart of all abusive relationships. Abuse is when there is a pattern of one person trying to gain power and control over another person. And while physical violence is the most obvious because it leaves bruises and marks, abuse takes many forms – verbal, emotional, spiritual, financial – all of which are equally as insidious and can leave lasting, invisible scars. All abuse is interconnected. And where there is one form of violence, there is often another too.

In need ?
National Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-363-9010. 

And while on the topic of domestic violence I found the following article from CBC News dated March 2011
that includes a poll and shared along with the others with provisions of The Copyright Act.
The Poll says Yes.
Military domestic violence: Should the Canadian Forces be doing more for military families? 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2011/03/military-domestic-violence-should-the-canadian-forces-be-doing-more-for-military-families.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Dec 2011)

Look, the problem is NOT religion: Muslims are no more prone to domestic violence because they are Muslim that Jews are because they are Jews.

One problem, amongst many, is cultural. Some cultures have retarded values - values that have not developed in step with, say, those of the Anglo-American or Chinese communities. Those _retarded valies_ mean that some people, those who adhere to them, equate _honour_ with the conduct of the female members of the family and they values female human lives less than family honour. Those values are not acceptable in a modern, civilized society. They may have worked in 8th century Arabia and they may even work in 21st century West Asia but they cannot be tolerated, not even in the name of religion, in Canada.

The fact is that while all races are the same and all religions are pretty much the same, some cultures are superior to others; the inferior ones must be supressed when they attenpt to operate in the world of the superior cultures. That's not nice to say but it's a fact.


----------



## Tow Tripod (7 Dec 2011)

The fact is that while all races are the same and all religions are pretty much the same, some cultures are superior to others; the inferior ones must be supressed when they attenpt to operate in the world of the superior cultures. That's not nice to say but it's a fact.                                                                 

That's not CF policy and it never will be! Remember the Charter not the Alamo!


----------



## 57Chevy (7 Dec 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Look, the problem is NOT religion



Exactly. The problem is well rooted in all societies and even though we have laws to prevent domestic violence,
providing ample proof of wrongdoing can be a long and arduous process.

An example of this is "stalking". 
Stalking is a crime called criminal harassment: (info from the dept of justice)  
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fv-vf/pub/har/har.html

The specific Criminal Code offence of "criminal harassment" was only created in 1993.

A stalker generally tries to intimidate or induce fear in the person they are stalking. The person being stalked may only realize they are being stalked once they identify a pattern of strange or suspicious incidents occurring.
Criminals and street gangs intimidate others whenever possible to satisfy their own hidden agenda. And it can become violent.

On a lesser note, I frequent a local corner store owned and operated by a newly arrived Chinese couple of whom I enjoy
conversing with. I have learned how to greet them in Mandarin; ne hao (pronounced "knee how").

Anyway, the owner told me about how some of his clients treat him. One young man in particular wanted to buy beer but didn't have enough money to pay for it, so Yuan (as I will call him) refused to give him credit. The young man started yelling at him and calling him names. Yuan didn't know what to do, so he gave him the beer just to keep the peace and make good riddance of him.

However, it didn't stop there. The young man went outside where he joined his friends and started yelling again in an attempt to entice his group of friends to do the same. When Yuan heard him, he went outside to see what all the commotion was about. He was startled by the look he received and the things he heard.
Yuan later told me that this incident hurt him a great deal because it was not common in his native country.

I consider that to be a form of domestic violence.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> some cultures are superior to others; the inferior ones must be suppressed when they attempt to operate in the world of the superior cultures



I somewhat agree, in that, some cultures may be likened to barbarism, but in the cultural mosaic we call Canada, there is a growing need for mutual respect of persons. 
Most people live within the laws that they are governed by, (no matter where they are) but there will always be those who so blatantly adopt some lower form of humanity even in a superior culture.

If, as the saying goes, "knowledge inspires change", then I may add that we live in a society of some very ignorant people.


*spelling


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Dec 2011)

Another cultural (not religious) problem abomination averted, this time in the UK, according to this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/21/honour-killing-baby-must-be-adopted-to-keep-her-safe-from-grandfather-court-rules/


> Muslim baby born after affair adopted out to stop ‘honour killing’ by grandfather
> 
> Reuters
> 
> ...




The baby's grandmother said, about her own husband, that: “he would consider himself honour-bound to kill the child, the mother, the grandmother herself and the grandmother’s other children.” Sorry, that's not about _honour_; it is about barbarism and it is an _attitude_ and a belief (but not a religious belief) which must be wrung out of civilized societies - we cannot, must not be tolerant of barbarity.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Dec 2011)

I'm afraid I'll never be able to understand the mindset of the cultures whence this (honour killing) comes from.  I agree it is not religious but cultural.  Although there seems to be damn little culture in this thinking.  Medieval to say the least.


----------



## 57Chevy (21 Dec 2011)

It's a much larger problem than what we see here in Canada, and apparently,
according to this article by Robert Fisk dated Sept 2010, it's a rapidly growing problem worldwide.
And worse yet, what is reported is only the tip of the iceberg.
(Article shared with provisions of The Copyright Act) (highlights mine)

'Honor' Killing: The Crimewave that Shames the World
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/09/07-1

It's one of the last great taboos: the murder of at least 20,000 women a year in the name of 'honor'. Nor is the problem confined to the Middle East: the contagion is spreading rapidly

It is a tragedy, a horror, a crime against humanity. The details of the murders - of the women beheaded, burned to death, stoned to death, stabbed, electrocuted, strangled and buried alive for the "honor" of their families - are as barbaric as they are shameful. Many women's groups in the Middle East and South-west Asia suspect the victims are at least four times the United Nations' latest world figure of around 5,000 deaths a year. Most of the victims are young, many are teenagers, slaughtered under a vile tradition that goes back hundreds of years but which now spans half the globe.

A 10-month investigation by The Independent in Jordan, Pakistan, Egypt, Gaza and the West Bank has unearthed terrifying details of murder most foul. Men are also killed for "honor" and, despite its identification by journalists as a largely Muslim practice, Christian and Hindu communities have stooped to the same crimes. Indeed, the "honor" (or ird) of families, communities and tribes transcends religion and human mercy. But voluntary women's groups, human rights organizations, Amnesty International and news archives suggest that the slaughter of the innocent for "dishonoring" their families is increasing by the year.

Iraqi Kurds, Palestinians in Jordan, Pakistan and Turkey appear to be the worst offenders but media freedoms in these countries may over-compensate for the secrecy which surrounds "honor" killings in Egypt - which untruthfully claims there are none - and other Middle East nations in the Gulf and the Levant. But honor crimes long ago spread to Britain, Belgium, Russia and Canada and many other nations. Security authorities and courts across much of the Middle East have connived in reducing or abrogating prison sentences for the family murder of women, often classifying them as suicides to prevent prosecutions.

It is difficult to remain unemotional at the vast and detailed catalog of these crimes. How should one react to a man - this has happened in both Jordan and Egypt - who rapes his own daughter and then, when she becomes pregnant, kills her to save the "honor" of his family? Or the Turkish father and grandfather of a 16-year-old girl, Medine Mehmi, in the province of Adiyaman, who was buried alive beneath a chicken coop in February for "befriending boys"? Her body was found 40 days later, in a sitting position and with her hands tied.

Or Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, 13, who in Somalia in 2008, in front of a thousand people, was dragged to a hole in the ground - all the while screaming, "I'm not going - don't kill me" - then buried up to her neck and stoned by 50 men for adultery? After 10 minutes, she was dug up, found to be still alive and put back in the hole for further stoning. Her crime? She had been raped by three men and, fatally, her family decided to report the facts to the Al-Shabab militia that runs Kismayo. Or the Al-Shabab Islamic "judge" in the same country who announced the 2009 stoning to death of a woman - the second of its kind the same year - for having an affair? Her boyfriend received a mere 100 lashes.

Or the young woman found in a drainage ditch near Daharki in Pakistan, "honor" killed by her family as she gave birth to her second child, her nose, ears and lips chopped off before being axed to death, her first infant lying dead among her clothes, her newborn's torso still in her womb, its head already emerging from her body? She was badly decomposed; the local police were asked to bury her. Women carried the three to a grave, but a Muslim cleric refused to say prayers for her because it was "irreligious" to participate in the namaz-e-janaza prayers for "a cursed woman and her illegitimate children".

So terrible are the details of these "honor" killings, and so many are the women who have been slaughtered, that the story of each one might turn horror into banality. But lest these acts - and the names of the victims, when we are able to discover them - be forgotten, here are the sufferings of a mere handful of women over the past decade, selected at random, country by country, crime after crime.

Article continues at link with several reports and includes a comments section.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Dec 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> It's a much larger problem than what we see here in Canada, and apparently,
> according to this article by Robert Fisk dated Sept 2010, it's a rapidly growing problem worldwide.
> And worse yet, what is reported is only the tip of the iceberg.
> (Article shared with provisions of The Copyright Act) (highlights mine)
> ...




I often find cause to disagree with Robert Fisk but not this time: tragedy, horror, crime against humanity and not confined to Muslims, either is spot on.

Two thousand plus years ago the Romans wiped out the Druids for the (probably real) "crime against humanity" of human sacrifice - we have to find a way to rid the world of "honour killings," too, although slaughter might be just a little wee bit over the top.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Dec 2011)

Would be effective, no?  After all one does not see any true Druids creeping about nowadays.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Dec 2011)

A good start would be to strike the term "Honour killing" from the lexicon. Cowardly domestic violence and murder are what is being described here (and the ongoing trial in Kingston is about _mass murder_ BTW).


----------



## a_majoor (22 Dec 2011)

Here is another group that is attacking our Liberal Democratic values. Indeed, read the nature of the causes they are funding and ask yourself if this is different from groups like the Taliban in intent?:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2011/12/20111218-083139.html



> *Foreign funds flowing to fight oilsands*
> 
> 8:31 am, December 18th, 2011
> 
> ...



Other foreign groups attempting to influence Canadian politics include Avaaz (a creation of MoveOn). If we are concerned about unassimilated immigrants ignoring our values and barbaric lawbreaking, then consider how disruptive "Progressive" groups with hundreds of millions in external funding promoting anti Canadian agendas can be.


----------



## Redeye (22 Dec 2011)

This article has basically nothing to do with the far more interesting topic at hand. However,  I can think of a litany of differences and any rational person likely can. Transnational organizations take an interest in these issues because they're global issues. Maybe you haven't noticed, but there's also vast swathes of the Canadian population opposed to oilsands developments, it's not as though their development is some sort of universal Canadian value, because that's absolutely not the case. Further, much of the money powering the pro-oilsands lobbying effort is foreign in origin as well, given that oil's a global business and Big Oil will reap massive profits from the development of oilsands. It thus doesn't bother me in the least that the counterpoint trying to spur more public discussion and debate is also coming from global organizations.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Here is another group that is attacking our Liberal Democratic values. Indeed, read the nature of the causes they are funding and ask yourself if this is different from groups like the Taliban in intent?:
> 
> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2011/12/20111218-083139.html
> 
> Other foreign groups attempting to influence Canadian politics include Avaaz (a creation of MoveOn). If we are concerned about unassimilated immigrants ignoring our values and barbaric lawbreaking, then consider how disruptive "Progressive" groups with hundreds of millions in external funding promoting anti Canadian agendas can be.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> This article has basically nothing to do with the far more interesting topic at hand. However,  I can think of a litany of differences and any rational person likely can. Transnational organizations take an interest in these issues because they're global issues. Maybe you haven't noticed, but there's also vast swathes of the Canadian population opposed to oilsands developments, it's not as though their development is some sort of universal Canadian value, because that's absolutely not the case. Further, much of the money powering the pro-oilsands lobbying effort is foreign in origin as well, given that oil's a global business and Big Oil will reap massive profits from the development of oilsands. It thus doesn't bother me in the least that the counterpoint trying to spur more public discussion and debate is also coming from global organizations.




The "Robson Steet corridor" is hardly a vast swathe.


----------



## Redeye (22 Dec 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The "Robson Steet corridor" is hardly a vast swathe.



There's quite a fair bit of dissenting opinion about oilsands production. It's certainly not something that is unanimously approved of. If it was, there wouldn't be the lobbying effort (the humourously nonsensical "ethical oil") necessary.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Dec 2011)

I must admit, I got a chuckle out of the "ethical oil" argument some girl was trying to put forth on TV.  She couldn't form an argument to save her life, but she sure had a good stock of one-liners to throw out, mostly stuff with terms like "evil" and the like.


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> There's quite a fair bit of dissenting opinion about oilsands production. It's certainly not something that is unanimously approved of. If it was, there wouldn't be the lobbying effort (the humourously nonsensical "ethical oil") necessary.


Though I personal have no qualms if a dozen ducks were drowned in black sludge to get oil out of the ground, Redeye is quite correct.  "Oil" is no more ethical than swiss cheese.  This would make oil "amoral".  (Its extraction, its use, or whatever, may have an ethical value, but that's a different argument)

Given how perceptions are bandied about in the public forum, such words as "ethical" are thrown about by people who haven't a clue what they really mean.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I must admit, I got a chuckle out of the "ethical oil" argument some girl was trying to put forth on TV.  She couldn't form an argument to save her life, but she sure had a good stock of one-liners to throw out, mostly stuff with terms like "evil" and the like.



And as I go to put my response up, Infanteer amplifies what I mean.  But trust me, winning public opinion isn't about valid or sound arguments: it's about glitz and repeating the same truth or lie over and over again.


----------



## Sythen (22 Dec 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Though I personal have no qualms if a dozen ducks were drowned in black sludge to get oil out of the ground, Redeye is quite correct.  "Oil" is no more ethical than swiss cheese.  This would make oil "amoral".  (Its extraction, its use, or whatever, may have an ethical value, but that's a different argument)



Correct me if I am wrong, but the ethical part of EthicalOil has nothing to do with environmental impact, but contrasting Saudi Values with Canadian. If America (or anyone else) is gonna buy oil, why buy it from a terrorist supporting regime that makes slaves and objects of women when you can buy it from a staunch ally, with one of the best human rights track records in the world?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Dec 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong, but the ethical part of EthicalOil has nothing to do with environmental impact, but contrasting Saudi Values with Canadian. If America (or anyone else) is gonna buy oil, why buy it from a terrorist supporting regime that makes slaves and objects of women when you can buy it from a staunch ally, with one of the best human rights track records in the world?



That's the way I read it also.

Besides, the rest of it, who's right and who's wrong, the offshore funding, the oh so puritanical orgs like Greenpeace ( : ), et al, boils down to one thing and one thing only.

Who can get the biggest share of the market.

Morals and 'good for the earth and human race' only count if you can't see past the first floor, street level side of the whole thing.

It's all about the buck and how much you can get. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## MJP (22 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> but there's also vast swathes of the Canadian population opposed to oilsands developments,



Outraged environmentalists and the rabid far left are not 'vast swathes", just vocal minorities.  Most Canadians don't give a crap either way.  Sadly we all know what the focus is for the Canadian MSM.


----------



## Jed (22 Dec 2011)

Tom T. Hall had it right... Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey and more money.

Its all about the dollar in the end.


----------



## Redeye (22 Dec 2011)

The Ethical Oil clowns take whatever angle works - both about Iran and Saudi Arabia's treatment of women and gays to the environmental angle, if it suits. I find it rich that they'd like to vilify Saudi Arabia, despite it being (awkwardly) America's most important ally in the region. At the end of the day, the distinction is rather foolhardy given that oil is a fungible commodity. Where the oil comes from is irrelevant, consumers care solely about one thing: price. As I understand it, oilsands products don't easily lend themselves to gasoline production at economically. So lighter oils are always going to factor in until such time as we find an alternative.

I'm reading with some interest the debate currently unfolding over the Keystone XL pipeline in the US. The claims about the number of jobs it would create seemed wildly inflated to begin with, but there's also been some interesting discussion about the destination of the refined product, which may not be US markets, but export markets.

As for the claim that most Canadians don't care either way, perhaps. But enough care and make enough noise that it's worth discussing.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The Ethical Oil clowns...



Still with the name calling I see.


----------



## Redeye (22 Dec 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Still with the name calling I see.



Unfortunately, they come across that way. As Infanteer noted and I agree, any time I've seen their spokespeople, they lack any real depth. And they're fronted by Ezra Levant, and contempt doesn't adequately capture my opinion of him. So, yes. That's my opinion of them. They're pitching an argument that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end, and it's fairly easily seen through.


----------



## GAP (22 Dec 2011)

Whoa...wait one....and there's no slant to your POV?


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, they come across that way. As Infanteer noted and I agree, any time I've seen their spokespeople, they lack any real depth. And they're fronted by Ezra Levant, and contempt doesn't adequately capture my opinion of him. So, yes. That's my opinion of them. They're pitching an argument that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end, and it's fairly easily seen through.



Only to you. I'm sure you'd hate to hear everyone call the naysayers on Keystone "clowns" as well.


----------



## Redeye (22 Dec 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Only to you. I'm sure you'd hate to hear everyone call the naysayers on Keystone "clowns" as well.



Some of them, quite frankly, are. And generally for the same reason, they're making arguments they can't really back up, that are emotional rather than factual. From a purely economic standpoint, seeing it built means a lot of money coming in, which of course is a good thing for the economy of Alberta (and that will feed into growth in many jurisdictions. I've also seen some great information on how much the production process has improved in ecological/remediation terms, which is good to because ultimately we don't have an adequate alternative to petroleum yet. Hopefully we will before long, but for now, we don't. 

The problem lots of Americans in particular have with KXL is its route through a major aquifer, and the fact that there have been spills from such pipelines, with the worry being the contamination of a massive aquifer in important agricultural land. The second interesting line of argument they use concerns the possibility that the products will just be exported, torpedoing the "energy security" argument. Given that there's a lot of high powered lobby money flooding into the debate, with a cynical public, it's making for a lot of interesting reading during debates. I've no idea how it will turn out, but it's fascinating to read up on.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Some of them, quite frankly, are. And generally for the same reason, they're making arguments they can't really back up, that are emotional rather than factual. From a purely economic standpoint, seeing it built means a lot of money coming in, which of course is a good thing for the economy of Alberta (and that will feed into growth in many jurisdictions. I've also seen some great information on how much the production process has improved in ecological/remediation terms, which is good to because ultimately we don't have an adequate alternative to petroleum yet. Hopefully we will before long, but for now, we don't.
> 
> The problem lots of Americans in particular have with KXL is its route through a major aquifer, and the fact that there have been spills from such pipelines, with the worry being the contamination of a massive aquifer in important agricultural land. The second interesting line of argument they use concerns the possibility that the products will just be exported, torpedoing the "energy security" argument. Given that there's a lot of high powered lobby money flooding into the debate, with a cynical public, it's making for a lot of interesting reading during debates. I've no idea how it will turn out, but it's fascinating to read up on.




Once oil leaves the well it is, essentially, a fungible commodity and no one really knows, nor should anyone with an IQ higher than the one the gods gave to green peppers care where it came from or where it is going to. TCP has, already, agreed to reroute the pipeline around the aquifer so that argument is nothing more than cheap, dishonest propaganda - about what we expect from those sources. 

But, there is a good _strategic_ argument for doing everything we can to stymie the Middle East, including reducing the market for its oil.


----------



## MJP (22 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The problem lots of Americans in particular have with KXL is its route through a major aquifer, and the fact that there have been spills from such pipelines, with the worry being the contamination of a massive aquifer in important agricultural land. The second interesting line of argument they use concerns the possibility that the products will just be exported, torpedoing the "energy security" argument. Given that there's a lot of high powered lobby money flooding into the debate, with a cynical public, it's making for a lot of interesting reading during debates. I've no idea how it will turn out, but it's fascinating to read up on.


Again with the "lots of" comments...A vocal minority is not lots.  Most American are like most Canadians and don't give a crap.  They want cheap gas period.

The pipeline has agreed to move from the aquifer and the rants continue.  To me it just shows how much of a red herring that issue was.  I wish I had the map of North American pipelines that I had seen somewhere.  They are everywhere, although not all are huge pipelines.  This one pipeline is hardly going to tip the balance towards Armageddon.


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Dec 2011)

http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/united_states_pipelines.html

The following table lists United States pipelines, as shown on the map. It is followed by the map, which you can click to see an enlarged version. The pipeline routes on the map are labeled with the codes that are explained in the table. Pipeline label codes are colored green for oil, red for gas and blue for products, such as gasoline, propane and ethylene. The diameter, length and capacity of the pipeline, if known, are shown on the table. Follow these links for current United States economic data, which include oil and natural gas production, consumption, imports and exports, and for more detailed statistics from the US Census. For historical data, follow this link, and on that page click on a year, and then a country name.


----------



## Redeye (22 Dec 2011)

MJP said:
			
		

> Again with the "lots of" comments...A vocal minority is not lots.  Most American are like most Canadians and don't give a crap.  They want cheap gas period.



A vocal minority that's informed trumps an uninformed or apathetic majority in my view, when it comes to discussing anything.



			
				MJP said:
			
		

> The pipeline has agreed to move from the aquifer and the rants continue.  To me it just shows how much of a red herring that issue was.  I wish I had the map of North American pipelines that I had seen somewhere.  They are everywhere, although not all are huge pipelines.  This one pipeline is hardly going to tip the balance towards Armageddon.



I agree, though the move doesn't take it away from the aquifer, just to a less sensitive part (it's almost the entire state of Nebraska). That said, given that dilbit has a consistency somewhat like maple syrup as I understand it, as long as there are means to detect and respond quickly to leaks that may happen in remote locations, that does mitigate the risks substantially. I'd venture to guess that the myriad of synthetic fertilizers dumped on industrial agricultural operations in the Midwest is probably a bigger threat, all things considered.

What's driving the debate more lately seems to be how it's been tied into totally unrelated issues (payroll tax cut extensions in particular at the moment) by the Congress, which is presently paralyzed by Tea Party-aligned Representatives and a completely useless Speaker who won't stand up to them, and seems totally out of touch with a public that has his House at its lowest approval level in a long time. Some of my favourite American liberals quip that if a poll were done, syphillis would likely have a higher approval rating. That's making a lot more hay, and I think getting a lot more interested in what's going on.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Some of them, quite frankly, are. And generally for the same reason, they're making arguments they can't really back up, that are emotional rather than factual. From a purely economic standpoint, seeing it built means a lot of money coming in, which of course is a good thing for the economy of Alberta (and that will feed into growth in many jurisdictions. I've also seen some great information on how much the production process has improved in ecological/remediation terms, which is good to because ultimately we don't have an adequate alternative to petroleum yet. Hopefully we will before long, but for now, we don't.



Every group has radicals that make no sense in it. Starting off with name calling as the first sentence in your argument basically just turns people off from hearing anything else you have to say. There are a lot of eco-types that completely disregard any sort of science coming out of oilsands as "propoganda" and only listen to the facts that agree with their point of view. As you've said, oilsands has done a lot to improve how they extract that oil, and its a necessary evil until we figure out something that's cleaner and cheaper.

As for the Pipeline being rammed through Congress on the back of unrelated issues.... that's how American politics is done. They have a history of tieing random amendments into bills to either hide the amendment or just save time getting something put into law. Congress isn't paralyzed by the Tea Party, its operating how a majority of Americans voted. Complaining about them using their majority is just as crazy as complaining about the Tories pushing bills through the House here, they have a majority and its their perogative. Just remember, the Democrat-Senate could have stopped the pipeline, but they decided their tax cuts were more important to winning back votes than the pipeline is going to take any away.


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> A vocal minority that's informed trumps an uninformed or apathetic majority in my view, when it comes to discussing anything.


[tangent]This is my problem with *any* self-proclaimed elite class.  Any opposition to them is portrayed as uninformed or ignorant or worse, bigoted. [/tangent]


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Dec 2011)

OK I'm going to weigh in for what its worth:

Honour killings have no place in our country. Period. Or any civilized nation for that matter. 
Parliament should consider changing the law for multiple first degree murders from concurrent sentences to consecutive sentences.


----------



## MJP (23 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> A vocal minority that's informed trumps an uninformed or apathetic majority in my view, when it comes to discussing anything.





			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> [tangent]This is my problem with *any* self-proclaimed elite class.  Any opposition to them is portrayed as uninformed or ignorant or worse, bigoted. [/tangent]



 :goodpost:

What he said.  Just because they are loud and have an opposing view doesn't mean they are right nor very well informed.  They sure can parrot lines from Greenpeace et al very well though.  I am surprised that the extinction of polar bears hasn't been linked to the pipeline yet.  

The true risk of the pipeline is relatively low.  The Alaskan pipeline is pretty similar and has survived many a hick shooting shotguns at it and a few pipe bombs and there hasn't been an outright catastrophic failure although they have had some incidents.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Alaska_Pipeline_System#Incidents  Nothing is 100% but if it benefits both economies well enough and makes our oil driven economy go then it only makes sense.


----------



## 57Chevy (23 Dec 2011)

MJP said:
			
		

> The true risk of the pipeline is relatively low.



The Ogallala Aquifer system, also called the High Plains Aquifer, covers approximately 174,000 square miles beneath eight different states from North Dakota to Texas, and from Nebraska to New Mexico, and portions of it are drying up pretty quick.
Pumps have been running full time since the fifties keeping the breadbasket flourishing and providing drinking water for about 80% of the people living in the vicinity. If not, it would turn back into the desert it was back in the days of the settlers.

So I can understand the concern over possible, not probable contamination from that oil pipeline, 
However, I would be much more concerned about the radioactive waste disposal site in West Texas.

IMO, The thirst for money greatly outweighs the quenching that only a good glass of drinking water can provide.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Dec 2011)

The "informed" classes typically are not.  It is a rare day when they can correctly identify which phrase was uttered by a politician or talking head, and which was uttered by someone in a comedic sketch portraying the politician or talking head.  And on energy policy, they tend to be innumerate and therefore ignorant.  They literally have no quantitative grasp of what is necessary or possible relative to what they think needs to be done.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Dec 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A good start would be to strike the term "Honour killing" from the lexicon. Cowardly domestic violence and murder are what is being described here (and the ongoing trial in Kingston is about _mass murder_ BTW).



 :nod:

Absolutely!  Murder, pure and simple.


----------



## Redeye (23 Dec 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> Absolutely!  Murder, pure and simple.



 :goodpost:

"Honor killing" implies some sort of righteousness or purposefulness, where there is none.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> "Honor killing" implies some sort of righteousness or purposefulness, where there is none.


Agreed.  Murder is murder (and, slight tangent), which is why I have problem personally with the so-called "hate" crimes.  I mean, are there love crimes?  (If someone say kills a black man because that man is black, is that really worse than if that person kills that black man for any other reason?  It's is actually "less wrong" to murder someone if it's not for hate?)

Anyway, back on topic...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Dec 2011)

Looking at the problem from the other direction, while we think we "know" our values, they are really not well defined or articulated across Canadian society. Canadian history is still not celebrated in our schools (and having children in both public and secondary schools, as well as experieince with leadership candidates over many years, I can attest to this first hand), and our national mythology still revolves around concepts like "peacekeeping" (as I discovered when talking to students during a Remebrance day ceremony).

The Classical Liberal values of free speech and assembly, unfettered use of our own property and the Rule of Law are constantly undermined in our sight and often by our own self proclaimed elites ("Human Rights" tribunals are nototious for attacking free speech, property rights are actually unrecognized in the 1982 Constitution and many threads in Army.ca discuss differential law enforcement, preferential treatments based on gender, ethnic origin, religion and so on). 

So a robust defense of our values first requires *we* start defining and promoting them. I'm sure silly people will deamonise the promotion of Classical Liberal values as being a plot in the pay of some evil cabal (while conveiniently ignoring millions of dollars spent on "Progressive" or other counter propaganda), or cling to Trudopian mythology and "Delectible lies" of multiculturalism (the title of Professor Mansur's latest book[/color] BTW).

I would like to think we could go back to the "melting pot" as described by Samual Huntington in "[url=http://www.amazon.com/Who-Are-We-Challenges-Americas/dp/0684870541/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324698811&sr=1-1]Who are We?". Many American patriotic "institutions" (songs, ceremonies, popular stories and music) were created out of whole cloth by business in order to create a functioning work place with literate, numerate, english speaking workers with similar values who could work together in close quarters. While hardly altruistic, this effort from the late 1800's to @ 1920 created a powerful and unified culture. We recognize an echo of this in military basic training (although in a much watered down form from the past). Of course today there is a massive State which also sees its role in promoting "values" and nunerous NGO's who also strive to promote different sets of values, so there are no easy answers.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Dec 2011)

I disagree.

At the very least, Canadian values are captured in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in our laws, neither of which support murder/denial of one's life by another citizen as a justifiable action.

Regards
G2G


----------



## kratz (4 Jan 2013)

refs: 1)  reply # 229 on page 10
2)  The Star, 3 Jan 13



> Chinatown grocer who chased down thief to receive Diamond Jubilee Medal
> Published on Thursday January 03, 2013
> Alyshah Hasham
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Oct 2013)

Interesting Federal Court decision on how you "Canadianize" by just spending weekends & holidays here (as one young Pakistani woman in U.S. med school, with parents in Canada, tried claiming when attempting to become a citizen with less than three out of four years residency here) ....


> ....  In a comment that I admit may exceed the bounds of judicial notice, I am particularly of the view that the intrinsic values of Canadians based upon attitudes of respect for others and a willingness to accommodate cultural, social and economic challenges to resolve our differences is an essential characteristic of being a Canadian. I am in agreement with Justice Muldoon in Pourghasemi, at para 6 that being a Canadian is something that cannot be readily learned, but only experienced by living here because “Canadian life and society exist only in Canada and nowhere else” .... As for adult students becoming Canadianized through some process of osmosis by the Canadianization of their parents or family members, while the parents’ efforts to adopt Canada as their country is evidence of the determination and support the children will receive to follow in their parents’ footsteps, this cannot replace the need for the adult sons and daughters themselves to come into contact and participate with Canadians in their daily lives ....


More here.


----------

