Renegade

I care very little what words you use to describe me. It just clearly shows your ignorance of the use of the English language. The same language you treasure as part of Canadian culture. BTW, there are many remedial programs which will help you improve your grasp of the language. You say that, you've even said goodbye, but yet you keep appearing in this thread. Ok, since you insist. I will make it a plain and simple as possible.Nothing, not before the Charter or after, prevents English White Christian Canaidans from practicing their culture. That applies to religion, language or cultural practices. The only limits to personal actions to enact cultural practices is if such a practice trangresses the rights of others. According to math. Go ahead calculate it if you can. I'm sure if it was non-subjective I could look it up, however it is a subjective assessment so I ask you. When waves of immigrants came post-WWII did you consider that high-ratio ethnic immigration? Or do they only count as "ethnic" if they have darker skin. I'm touched that you consider me a 'citizen of the world', thank-you. I didn't ask what Canadian value are, I ask how you define White Canadian Christian Culture. If you don't want to define it, fine, but it makes no sense to have a discussion about how "culture" is in peril, when you won't define what you mean by cuture. When you say "Minority cultural clashes have been prominent in Canada since Canada became a country", I take that to mean that it is the normal state of affairs in Canada since it became a country. If you mean something different, please explain. Yawn!!! Are you really so devoid of original thoughts that you need to repeat the same falacies over and over?

But if I remember correctly, fiscal responsiblity for education, which was previously a city responsibilty was uploaded to the province.

Actually I thought I made it clear that I am a spokesman for no one but myself. I think the word you are struggling for is not "spokesman" but rather "advocate". I'm a Libertarian. Yes, clearly you don't. At least like some part of it anyway. Their motivation may be economic, their motivation may be to join family settled here. They may be refugees displaced from their own land. Their are a multitude of reasons why people immigrate. Maybe they even immigrate not because of the way it is, but but the way they percieve it to be. In the case of Canada they percieve it to be a multicultural community, tolerant of other cultures, where they retain their own culture. Yes, according to me. 130 years is a speck in time. When exactly do you think the "high ratio ethnic immigration" began? How do you define "Christian" culture? So then, you are saying that cultural clashes are a normal part of Canadian history and tradition since the country began?

You read all that into one statement I made, without even asking for an explaination?? pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. I did not mean the Charter gives religions or cultures unconditional blanket protection. The Charter does protect the right to anyones religious and cultural practices however the Charter doesn't protect religious practices which infringe on another individuals rights. Honour Killings, enforced Marrages, Pedophilia all infringe on individuals rights and are not protected behaviour. Being not white doesn't exempt you from being a racist or a bigot. I don't know your postions well enough to characterize you one way or another. BTW, when did you manage to stop being white??? Didn't you previously say this: your postYes I realize you are mixed-race, however in that statement you seem to identify yourself culturally as white. P.S. I am neither liberal, leftist or socialist. I have never voted Liberal in my life. I would characterize myself as libertarian. Personally I do agree that their is an obligation to integrate to the cultural norms of the society they are immigrating into. Currently that is nothing but a "moral" obligation, not a legal one. There is a legal obligation that they obey the law. Domestic Violence is against the law and I agree that such a transgression should be punished. I would support a probation period for new immigrants. I would support that at the end of the probation period they must meet certain criteria (such as speaking the language, and not being convicted of a criminal act). The consequence of not meeting the requirement would be they are sent back.

No I don't. Feel free to point it out.

That's the depth of your evidence? Chretien encouraging people to buy houses, and your observations that "price it seems is no barrier for ethnics"???? ROTFLMAO. Are you aware that in your "model" democracy, the USA, every major city such as NY, LA, SF, SD, have house prices far higher than the major cities in Canada? So if the immigrants are poor, you don't like them because the consume social services. If they are too rich, you don't like them because they can drive up demand for houses. Have you yet found a reason to like those in the middle? Perhaps the reasons they can afford houses is that they are skilled and work hard. If so, perhaps they are more deserving of those expensive houses than others. Yes, as I have already stated, cultural bigotry occurs on both sides. I commend your daughter for not letting the cultural differences dissuade her from marrying outside her race. I am not surprised by your position, but I appreciate your honesty.

Do you even know the proper meaning of "spokesman"? Are you sure you have mastered English? I am a representitive of nobody's views but myself. I speak on behalf for no group, not ethnic, not white, not religious. Let me refresh your memory and the ability to read your own posts. For your beneift I have highlighted the words in question: So when you deny saying it, and I prove you wrong, does that make you a liar? Yes, but it was not afforded the protection enshrined in the Charter. So how exactly is the Charter preventing from making their own personal cultural choices now? Are they prevented from practising their religion? Speaking their language? Creating their art? Please tell me how. I DO agree with you that the nature of immigration changes the cultural make-up of the country, however, I don't see a particular need to be attached to the "existing cultural status quo". The cultural diversity introduced by immigration enriches the existing culture and is not detrimental. As I said, culture is not static and is in continual flux. For clashes between races to happen their needs to be radical intolerance on both sides, and while I do acknowledge this intolerance exists, fortunately I see it in only in the small minority of individuals.

And you are perfectly within your rights to do so. And do you have any evidence it has done so? In those towns which all the other shops have closed, have prices been jacked up once the last other store has closed? It has been my experience that the the mom and pop shops charged far higher markups then even situations where Walmart was the sole retail outlet. All it demonstrates is that small business is not effective competition to Walmart. Walmart mostly differentiates based upon price. Effective competiion will appear based upon either being more efficient even than Walmart is, or by differentating at something other than price.

Why assume the closing of small business is a bad thing? Sure it is worse for the small business owner, but it is better for the consumer, afterall the consumer with his dollar votes on which retail outlet he prefers.

Betsy, much of what you see in this thread has been discussed to death before. Here and here and here and here

Cite? Please cite the specific quotes where I have lied. No? Do you deny that it was your conclusion that I am some non-Christian member of an ethnic group? Just like the other thread where you jumped to the conclusion that I was homosexual? Really, please dole out some of your infinite "wisdom" and explain it. No, you are right. It is more than you. Regretably racism is not just resricted to you and there are are some others who share the extremes of your opinion. What I said is the Canadians make their own cultural choices and are free to follow the cultural practices of their choice. The source is the Charter which grants them the freedom to do so. Got some evidence of this upcoming race revolution? Race riots? I must have missed it in the news. Any evidence of this plan? Funny I never even heard that the government owned expensive houses. You must have some inside information, please do share. Do you know what the average net worth is of an immigrant at the time they arrive? You must, otherwise how would you know if an immigrant can afford these expensive houses. Please do share you information. I'm breathless with anticipation. No, is there any difference between a small business operated by "ethnics" and one opperated by White Christian Canadians? I don't know. Do you? It's their money, what do I care what they do with it? Do you think they have some obligation as to how they dispose of their money? If you mean intolerant toward racism and bigotry, absolutely I am. If you mean intolerant toward a specifc group, cite the specific quotes which demonstrate that. I've asked you to do so before, but you have been unable to do so. Let me endevour to change that and illustrate the cultural problem you profess. Let me ask you what may or may not be a hypothetical question. Do you have any children? If you do, or if you had, would you have any problem with them marrying an ethnic immigrant and learning their culture and customs?

I am not nor have I claimed to be a spokesman for other cultures. It is simply your instance at jumping to conclusions and labelling people which has led you to that belief. What I am advocating is a society free from racial and cultural bigotry and respect for individual rights. That applies no matter which group is the source of the racism. It's only a loaded word when you fail to grasp its meaning. Being tolerant is only unrealistic for those so steeped in racism and so myoptic in their own culture that the fail to recognize a broader perspective. Of course they are, and most do. It is only you who considers it traitorous. Most Canadians whether white, or not, whether Christian or not, make their own cultural choices and adopt their own practices without complaint. You also fail to acknowledge that "culture" is not static. It always has, and will continue to evolve as time and outside influences change its shape. Even the "white" culture you regard as traditional has been the source of evolution with influences from the Saxons and the Romans. Yes, of course you are, and you laugh because you couch your racism in misguided patriotism. The sad part is that I think you genuinely believe you are patriotic and that makes you blind to your racism. In this respect you share a common them with this group. Frankly, your statement makes no sense to me. The existance of other cultures does not " sweep away the major components of the' White, English speaking, Christian Canadians culture'". Canadians of all origins are free to practice their cultural beliefs and have the right to do so without interference. You calling me a traitor is a supreme compliment. Thank-you. It acknowledges that I don't share the same racist and bigoted belief system that promotes my culture at the expense of others. Much appreciated because I'd like to disassociate my views from yours by the widest possible margin.

Huh? "Embrace my culture"???? I'm ashamed to say that my culture is the same as your culture save for the racist attitudes. My expectation is not that we embrace other cultures, I think that is an individual choice. My expectation is that we are tolerant of other cultures. First, you assume that "my" schools, etc, are different than "yours" they aren't. Second, yes, you have made it abundantly clear that you don't see the fairness in having an open and tolerant society. Surprisingly I do agree with you here. Racism is definately an element in many ethnic groups. Some display a large amount of intolerance toward "Western" culture. I condenm racism there as much as I have here. Thankfully, it has been my observation that with each successive generation there has been a more adaptable attitude. It is only your view that you are representative of "loyal Canadian patriots". In my view the racism displayed is distinctly disloyal, un-Canadian, and unpatriotic.

I would have like to say goodbye to the racism and bigotry you have expressed, however regretfully Canada seems to be burdened with a small segment of the population who have deep seated racism and do not have an open enough mind to embrace other cultures. They clearly cannot support their position with any evidence or facts and must resort to mindless excuses when challenged.

Where child abuse, rape and oppression take place, it is those acts which ought to be procecuted, not the marital structure itself. I agree that polygamy (or any other form of marriage) should be permitted for freely consenting adults. Even if you procecuted some of the more exteme behaviour demonstrated, I doubt it would stop polygamy. If you forced spouses to be at least 18 before marriage, it would simply defer but not change the nature of the marriage in these communities.

You said this: I took that to mean that you mean it ws a characteristic of polygamy but not other forms of marriage. If I've misunderstood you, I apologize I agree. They are separate issues. But where do YOU stand? Do you think that polygamy should be legal?

Great statement. Unfortunately it doesn't at all address the question I asked. Should I somehow infer from your response that only Christian White Countries have "LEGITIMATE immigration concerns"? Respond to what? All of my responses would be the same if Muslims were the majority and White English speaking Christians were a high-proportion of the immigrants. Of course you did, but that is not the statement I made. To refresh your memory I said: You asked me to name them. I named Singapore as one example. BTW, very few "White English speaking Christian" countries have as high level of immigration as Canada, and Canada itself is already a pretty good example of an integrated society. When were the last large scale race riots in Canada? You have highlighted USA as a model country for how things work. Yes I see now how the US policies have led to complete racial harmony there, and Nooooo, they have never had race riots there.... Of course Singapore is not a "White English speaking Christian" society. It was an example of of my statement above. I never restricted my statement to "White English speaking Christian" countries. That was a restriction you wished to add. So why do you think that if non-White English speaking Christian countries can show racial harmony, why can't "White English speaking Christian" (WESC) countries? Absolutely it did. That was 44 years ago and early in its history as a country. It has since adapted and been a model for racial and cultural country. Clearly you have never been or lived there. In fact have you even ever left your backwoods abode? Culture of Singapore

Why do you say this is exclusive to polygyny? Isn't it is pretty common in monogomous marriage for the male to dominate the woman so they are subservient to the same extent? The existance of numberious women's shelters, and cases of battered women should prove that. In any case, are you against independant adults making their own decisoins about the kind of marital arrangement they commit to? Is an adult woman not allowed to commit to an arrangement which makes her subservient?

I can think of at least a couple of reasons: - Several major religions which permitted polygyny, but yet banned polyandry. - If one of the goals of marriage is procreation, it is far more efficient to pair one man with many women, rather than visa versa for obvious reasons. - Men have historically been the high-income earner and are thus more capable of supporting multiple wives than a woman principal bread-winner

I agree that western culture has not had a clean history on its attitude toward women, however, you seem to imply that the troops are in Afghanistan are there to promote women's rights. This is clearly false. Western countries troops are in Afghanstan for their own self-interest and any other consideration is secondary.

Part of the reason that Canadian costs are lower are that prices are regulated. The state dictates to the medical profession how much it will pay for a particular procedure. I am not for the american system. I agree that there are thngs which drive up the cost. Similarily there are parts of the Canadian system which would benefit from change. I am not proposing an Americn type system. I would propose modifications of the Canadian system where people pay a part of the actual cost, where contributions to the system are reflective of the risk of using the system, and that tiers of care are offered. I don't see that what I propose would change the Canadian cost structue at all and in fact may reduce costs. Your analogy that I would pay more, are way off base. People with better income buy better food, better shelter, and better clothing. It is completely consistant that is extended to healthcare. If you at least want to be consistent in your position, you should be against allowing any privlidege based upon wealth in society. Actually it is irrelevant if I keep more or don't. I believe that one should pull their weight. If for me pulling my weight meant paying more, I'd be happy to do so. Absolutely I'd like to have more choice in those areas too if it were possible. For example if I lived in a high-crime area, I may wish to purchase premium police protection. Isnt' that sort of what we do anyway, with the purchase of private securiy forces to supplement police protection? Certainly I'll agree that it is a goal. We can discuss whether it is implementable in each of those areas. It certainly is implementable in healthcare. The problem is while you may consider it worth it, I may not. Your system presumes you should be able to force me to accept a system which you consider acceptable. Personally I'd be ok with what you propose if it let me opt out and take me healthcare tax dollars and spend it at the provider I choose. But it doesn't, and it woudl likely collapse if it were an open system. That's fine if the people you vote for actually get into power and act consistent with your choices, but then you shouldn't complain if some other party gets into power and forces its moral choices down your thoat, because afterall you have already agreed that the government should be imposing moral choices on people.

Sure, I would have no problem agreeing that as a general statement about efficiency. That doesn't mean I would necessarily agree that it is the best system. I can demonstrate to you that it is more efficient if eveyone drove exactly the same model and colour car, does it mean that should be the only criteria. Your math is completely faulty and riddled with incorrect assumptions. You assume I am paying the average amount in taxes. Maybe I'm paying $6000, $10000, or $100000, or zero in taxes toward healtcare. You assume I would pay the average cost toward private healthcare. Maybe I'm very healthy and woudl only pay $3000. Maybe I'm very old and would pay $15,000. You cannot take generalizations and extend them to specifcs. I believe most of the efficiencies in our system comes from the single-payer system. I believe that we can improve our system by keeping the single-payer system, but adopt the insurance model to other areas of the system. We should open up the system to choice and levels of service, while still retaining the efficiency of a single-payer model. No, not at all. I am at heart very practical. As I have shown you you can't apply average number to make you case, so show me how specificly a completely public system both gives me choice and lets me keep more of my money and you'll win me over. That people get involved in healthcare for moral reasons is their INDIVDIUAL choice. I don't have any issue with removing morality from individual choices. I do have an issue wth the state making moral judgements on my behalf. I don't think the state should have any right to dictate morality to me, not in where I spend my money, nor in my abortion choices. BTW, why stop at healthcare. Based upon your reasoning, the state could petty much make you do anything it wanted under the sanction of it being "moral".

No, I was not debating points I "believe" in. I was debating points I had evidence of. The original point was whether the profit incentive leads to better care. Regardless of whether I believe there should or should not be state intervention, I can show by evidence and examples the effect of profit on care. As an example although I don't believe in state intervention, I am compelled to agree that a single-payer system is more efficient, and thus I am willing to support such a system. Dental care is simply a form of healthcare, and by your own admisson you get quality and timely care. What the state "should" do is a matter of opinion. What I have shown is that you can have a great (though not universal) healthcare system without it being state-run. No, human well-being is just one consideration. The freedom for people to choose where their funds are best spent is also another. In many cases in society we don't choose "lives" over "freedom". For example, it is not mandatory that I donate my blood even if someone else's life depends upon it. That choice is mine alone to make. IMV the state is not capable of making moral judgements, and those judgements should be left for the individual to decide. In this specific case, if left to the individual to decide, and you didn't want to see a street-person do without care, then you would be free to purchase his care for him. In any case, as I had discussed with Riverwind (and he agreed) here, a moral argument is a very weak case to make in the case of healthcare.

stevoh, yes good debate and I appreciate the responses. You started your position by implying what works best and what is most effective, but when it comes to the heart of the debate, it is what YOU feel the role of of the state should be. You have prefixed your positions in the all the statements above by what "you want" or what "you believe". What you are really saying is that the state should play the role of the nanny for those who cannot pull their own weight in society. That's fine, but it is not a view of the state I believe in. By saying its "just plain wrong" you are reducing it to a moral argument. That's a subjective assessment isn't it? I may feel it s "just plain wrong" for anyone to freeload on the taxpayers dime. Where it the absolute judge of morality?

You are right that many cultures have an absymal attitude towards the value of women. The question is what intervention if any should be imposed.