JerrySeinfeld

I watch the National (CBC) - maybe this is why I haven't heard more about the CBC reporter who colluded with the Liberals in an attempt to tie the Mulroney-Schreiber scandal to the Harper Conservatives. an excerpt from a NP column: Link

OK let's explore this. Is beating your wife: 1. Wrong 2. Right 3. Subjective

I believe that this "Moral Relativism" is one of the fundamental problems with Progressive Left Wing thought. While there is some wiggle room here, I believe most left wing progressives, and as a result our media and society in general have taken this concept too far - to the point where we lack accountability - everything is "ok" as it were. Can we apply this to environmentalism, smoking, seatbelts, political corrcetness, freedom of speech, racism, bigotry, etc....PLEASE?

An interesting point, BUT, is that a reason not to discuss it? If so, then we should probably drop the whole environmentalism thing too, no? What I'm saying is that Sam Sullivan would probably consider it an insult if someone cut him slack on policy due to his physical condition. To give him his due respect, he should be debated fairly - on policy, not based upon who he is or what he is. Same goes for Islam. Paying someone the respect of being honest with them about their faults or your opinion of them goes along with being considering "equal". If we criticize American's, it's because we all know and believe they can take it. Should every other group be afforded the same level of respect? Or should we dole out the pity of silence to the brown people? Indeed, which is why these courts should have no jurisdiction at all. Hate speech legislatino is under the criminal code - and if the Canadian Islamic Congress was serious in their charges, that's where the complaint should be lodged. The Human Rights "Court" doesn't have the same processes: ie. innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt etc. Their "test" is whether someone is "offended" which doesn't allow much for the "defendant" to argue. Just look at the record: no one has ever been found "not guilty" in it's entire history. The verdict really isn't the point here. Shouldn't we be concerned in a free country that such a court is even allowed to rule on Freedom of Speech? This is something that should be handled in criminal or civil court - ie. the "law of the land" - in my opinion.

I personally have would have a problem with it. "Creeping Sharia" is it were, is an interesting phenomenon, because from where I sit, the tolerance revolution of the past 30 years has made it all but impossible to criticize or point out faults in anyone that isn't white or male without being chastized for racism. Two interesting present day examples: Quadraplegics are "disadvatanged" and "minority". But I think we would all agree that it's ludicrous to cut Sam Sullivan (Mayor of Vancouver and quadraplegic) any slack on policy because of his condition. Fom where I sit the same should apply to Islam in a democracy. Just because (although not all Muslims are) you're brown shouldn't insulate you from the wrath of public discourse. Which leads me to exhibit 'b' - not a theoretical example of "morailty shift", but a real life present day one: Earlier on this thread someone mentioned that the "rule of law" or the "consititution" should be the framework by which all "shifts in morality" are bound. However, an example that is ocurring as we speak relates to this. Mark Steyn (right wing columnist) and MacLean's magazine have been hauled out on the carpet before three separate human rights tribunals by the Canadian Islamic Congress for an excerpt from Steyn's book printed in Macleans which the CIC finds "offensive". My question is threefold on this issue: 1. Where is it written in our consitution or charter of rights that anynoe has the right not-to-be-offended. 2. Isn't this kind of charge / "court" case (ie. tribunal) a direct violation of freedom of speech - a constitutional right? and, bringing it all back to topic: 3. Isn't this, then, an example of our societal morals / values "shifting" right befor our eyes? and if so - does anyone else out there have a problem with this, or, as stated by others on this post, is this just plain "ok - because we're shifting with the natural tides of demography"?

OK. So this brings me to the example of Europe. As far as I understand there are a couple of things relating to this topic ongoing in Europe right now. I believe it was a Swedish cabinet minister who was quoted as saying "I think we should have Sharia Law - because if we're nice to Muslims when we're the majority, hopefully they will be nice to us when THEY are in the majority." I don't really want to debate how bad things arein Europe right now. What I will bring up is not whether Europe is going toward Sharia Law, but the fact that it's actually UP FOR DEBATE in some places. My question is this: as a society is there a "tipping point" (to use Al Gore terminology) where one day we wake up from our sleepy, lazy existence where "everything is OK" and "everyone is the same" and realize we're surrounded by people who arn't quite as tolerant as we thought or hoped or imagined them to be? I go back to the first post: 1. Different cultures have different characteristics. 2. Cultures have good and bad characteristics. 3. It is desirable for a society to discourage bad characteristics from being brought into, condoned or allowed in society.

OK I will answer this question with a question for both you and M. Hardner: I think most people would agree that gradual shifts do take place when it comes to "societal morailty" otherwise gay marriage would not be legal as it is now. But here is a question for the "shift is inevitable" crowd (and you knew I was going here eventually): If, down the road, there are enough new people to "morally shift us" in that direction, is it OK for Canada to one day be under Sharia law? I know it's the extreme example - but the extreme is always the "test" if you will, of the thesis.

I think that's what's called "moral relativism" isn't it? Nobody has to be ashamed / called out for anything anymore. Is that good? You tell me. I personally think there has to be some kind of "definition" of our common beliefs or values as a society. Isn't that, after all, the definition of a "society"? That's mine, anyway. Otherwise, isn't Canada (or some other multicutural country) just a hotel? A void waiting to be filled by a more confident, well-defined group? But you've gotten to the crux of where I was going with this: 1. Do we, as a country, or any other country, define ourselves by a set of common values or beliefs and behaviors which we will try to uphold and defend? or 2. Do we shift with the demographic winds? Do we simply define ourselves by the beliefs of our "tenants" of the day in this hotel?

OK - so based upon this premise - think about people and "racism" or "prejudice" as it were. Is it possible that prejudice is all around us all the time - left wingers, right wingers...etc. Grouping people together and maknig generalizations about them. I hear left wing zealots making durogatory remarks about Americans all the time. Or men. Or white people. What about "positive" prejudice"? Don't we hear and accept that all the time? Is it OK to say "the chinese are generally excellent immigrants: peaceful educated, industrious" ? I would venture that most people, left wing and right wing, would listen to that statement and not only allow for it, but agree with it. So when it comes to prejudice, we do seem to allow it (and even encourage it) on both sides of the political spectrum. (Of course, we all know lefties have cornered the market on calling people names and painting people with broad brushes like like "bigot" etc. which is kind of ironic when you think about it). How does this pertain to multiculturalism? Well, if we can be honest about positive aspects of a particular culture, why can't we be honest about the negative ones? We do it about ourselves all the time. In Canada we constantly see marches and protests criticizing this or that government policy of societal condition. Now stay with me here, my question is this: If we truly believe in equality - if we truly RESPECT other cultures as much as we claim to, then why would we choose (in the name of tolerance) to exclude these cultures from the very same self-examination that we subject ourselves to all the time? Are we so obsessed with race and culture that we can't be honest with eachother about our faults?

OK. It's time we approached this thing from a simple perspective. Before getting into the nuances of "tolerance" etc. let's establish some rules of the game. Can everyone on here agree on a couple of things? 1. Different cultures have different characteristics. - after all - if they didn't, then there is no such thing as "multiculturalism" - right? 2. Cultures have good and bad characteristics. 3. It is desirable for a society to discourage bad characteristics from being brought into, condoned or allowed in society. Is this a fair starting point?

McCain SHOULD mop the floor with him. From the years have followed US politics McCain has always stuck to his guns, generally ignored partisanship and tried to do "the right thing". That should bode very well in a general election against Obama who is trying to portray himself as a "uniter" - in fact they may neutralize eachother in that realm which would leave clarity on positions, experience and foreign policy as big deciding factors - McCain has an edge on each one of those. The wild card is this: Liberals and hollywood types are DYING to make this a historic vote (ie. first woman / first black President). As always with lefties, they're so obsessed with race and gender, they'll vote that way based upon it, and not upon the issues. I can just picture the Oprah / The View / Hollywood crowd cooing all the way through the campaign. This could be enough to tilt the scales for Obama...or it might get old by the time the polls actually open. That's the great thing about US politics - Pres. campaigns are too long for fads and emotion to win the day.

Yes - it could NEVER have POSSIBLY been any decision made by GW Bush. This clever NY Times drivel sounds eerily similar to the old "the Berlin Wall would have fell anyway" schtick so common when the "dumb right wing cowboy" turns out to have been absolutely right in the face of years of whining by the loonie ivory tower left.

Ron Paul is a flake. That someone like this would actually get measurable political support shows the complete lack of thinking people do before voting. When people buy a TV they research all the consumer reports, talk to several sales people, negotiate on price, warranty etc. perhaps spending weeks. When people vote, they say "hey - I like that guy - he sounds pretty neat!" and they click a box. Well - not entirely true in the US, because thanks to their lengthy system of leadership selection, Ron Paul will be a memory by the time they get to St. Paul.

Looks like we agree on last night's debates... That's funny - I actually heard the word "excoriate" come out of her mouth. I know a few people like that personally - and on this forum - who think an expansive vocabulary equates with wisdom...NOT. I quit using that stunt in first year U when my english prof scolded my essays by telling me to stop admiring my point and just to make it with clarity. Hillary could use said advice.

Here are some tidbits from today's column by Lorne Gunter: and finally the best quote: Link to the article.

15? Isn't 15 ancient in nutjob jihadi terms? I mean, the suicide bomber who killed Pakistan's PM was a newborn baby. These people play by different rules - which is we should rightly bend ours in our fight against them. They wisely know that we voluntarily fight with one hand behind our back in all areas (legal or combat) and take full advantage of that fact. Let him rot.

McCain will win NH tomorrow. I say it again: He is the only one in the race (both parties) who actually acts like a president - not som ninny wannabe weathering an endless job interview (the rest of the field - both parties).

I think the whole multiculti thing had it's appeal for awhile. But that was back when immigrants (and some of their whacked out, backward, mysoginistic or just plain midievil ideas) were drowned out by the majority of people who believed in basic anglo / euro democratic ideals. In other words, they kept quiet or blended in for the most part - and often contributde to some great restaurants / festivals etc. celebrating the - ahem - more palatable parts of their culture. Things have changed. Demographically some groups are becoming ever larger chunks of society. Some of their ass backward opinions are becoming emboldened. It's not overly apparent (yet) in Canada because they're still minorities, but just look at what's happening in Europe to see where Canada is headed is we continue to pursue a policy of "mosaic" versus "melting pot". We as Canadians need to - quite soon - decide what our core values are and what we will and will not tolerate in our society. Intergration is going to become a bigger and bigger issue in this country as people of euro-descent become an ever smaller and smaller portion of society. Is the anglo/euro/american model of democracy and tolerance going to end up as a very short 300 year blip on mankind's otherwise miserable existence of dictatorial societies? It certainly could be given our "tolerance" of some ideals we have inadvertantly imported with our immigrants.

um - i wouldn't bank on Iowa this time out: Reverend Huckabee's 23% sales tax (among other things) won't fly too far in this race when we get to the big states....

I watched the NH debates last night (the CNN rerun version) and here are my thoughts: As per usual the democrats all look like feel-good dreamers more concerned with polls, moods and feelings than actual right and wrong. Edwards had a good couple of genuine-sounding soundbites on lobby groups and special interests but good luck ever changing anything there and it's not a hot button issue for voters. I can't help thinking Hillary just wants so much to sound like a man when she speaks - and she's fricken boring to listen to. The only person less interesting to listen to is Obama. He is like watching paint dry. Richards isn't eloquent enough and looks like a friars-club guy exchanging opinions over scotch. He comes across as a dreamer with no real teeth. Overall impression on the Dems: As beat up as GW Bush has been, I can't believe they actually might find a way to lose the next presidential race with this collection of clowns. On the GOP: Fred actor dude was completely unprepared and unimpressive. The more he talks the worse off he is. He should stick to law and order. I couldn't understand what he was trying to say half the time and actually felt sorry for him at moments. Mitt Romney isn't likeable. I felt like punching him in the face half the time. Ron Paul is quickly lokoing like a small timer with one or two issues typical of Libertarians: the war and monetary policy. Giuliani was the most eloquent, on message, clear and straightforward. He gave clear examples of past successes and clear explanations as to his positions and how he has been consistent with them. He's also the most centrist non-religious candidate which could hurt him in the GOP but help him in the general election. He also lacks that warm politico Bill Clinton-esque quality which makes voters fall in love with him. Huckabee looks like a talking head - even when he is actually saying something intelligent I can't help but think of his appearance on "talking to americans" when he congratulated Canada on preserving their national igloo. his might actually help him in the polls, however because americans get a guilty pleasure of riling up non-americans with their supposed ignorance about the rest of the world. McCain by far looked the most presidential of anyone from either party. He was calm, clear and unwavering. He was also able to give examples of how he hasn't shifted with public opinion - a quality only held by the greats such as Reagan and GW Bush. I liked how he laughed knowingly at Ron Paul's adolescent left-wing sounding complaint that "all we do is bomb people who we don't agree with". It was a perfect reaction to a low level thought process. I'd like to see a McCain-Giuliani Ticket myself. I think it would absolutely stomp on a Hillary-Obama or Obama-Hillary ticket. They'd take all the Red States Plus New York and Florida which is an easy victory.

Agreed - one of the biggest "myths" perpetrated is that Canada has some kind of obligation to act as a hotel to the world come one come all. Bullshit. We have the right and perogative to be selective - so why not be extremely selective? Why give passports to people who don't see Canada as a home to which their loyalties lie, but rather a convenience to call upon when Lebano- ...er...when their "homeland" becomes a bit too inconvenient.

True enough - nonetheless if we're going to promise lavish social programs we need a workforce to pay for it and Canadians are barely having childeren at relpacement rate so the model requires that we import people.

I think one of the problems here is the obsession lefties have with race. They're so scared of poo-pooing anyone but the white man, that it gets in the way of rational observation / thought. This obsession with race isn't a factor for the writer of the column, who is brown himself, so he can more easily speak the truth without the obligatory "racist" and "bigot" barbs that usually come in reaction to said truth.

I can't wait to hear the apologists try to bend and twist this one. Here is an excerpt from a column written in a Pakistani newspaper, the Daily Times, speaking about the recent Islamic Honour Killing in Toronto: And here is the link to the entire piece. If Pakistani Muslims can ackowledge this is becoming a problem, one that is being imported to Multiculti societies, why can't our own self-hating lefties? MERGED THREAD This post was the Opening Post of the following thread: Pakistani Newspaper Column Condemns Islamic Honour Killing

Excellent post, Moxie. Excellent.