turningrite

I think there's a broad range of topics where free speech has increasingly been under attack. When raising concerns on topics like diversity, gender equality and immigration, among others, the politically correct tendency is to shut critics down, even if nothing that's said is particularly incorrect or even controversial in its own right. Often, labels like "dog whistle" are applied to dismiss the assumed and/or alleged intent of critics. Accommodating Muslims is only a minor component of the broader debate about free speech. Did you read Neil MacDonald's article, which notes that there has been a trend toward increasingly narrowing the parameters of acceptable discussion and debate? Mr. MacDonald holds that M-103 is a good example of this (anti-democratic) trend. The issue is not whether one can back up what they're saying but whether there is a requirement in online fora that commenters must do so in order to express an opinion. If one disagrees with a comment, one is free to provide a countervailing opinion and back it up with arguments and/or facts if one so chooses. One can simply disagree, if one wishes. I spent years in academia and online fora are not academia and it's unrealistic to expect those who use them to observe academic process. Simply because most don't post in an academic fashion doesn't necessarily discredit their views. As for your critique of style, I don't want to get nasty or personal. I try to ensure that my posts are comprehensible to reasonably objective readers. I suppose one can cherry-pick aspects of a post with which one disagrees even while agreeing with the basic premise(s) of such post, but to be fair such qualified disagreement(s) should be clarified in a response. This is not about rules and guidelines vs censorship. Rather, it's a matter of promoting respectful and productive general discourse.

Wow. Do you watch the news? The parade draws several hundred thousand people a year, drawing heavily I believe from the non-LGBT population based on crowd size estimates as I think it unlikely there are more than a fraction of that number who are actual members of the LGBT community in the GTA. I suspect a lot of people attend for the spectacle and novelty although I think this appeal is overrated. By the way, the only actual sex I witnessed when attending the festival was a young straight couple who had a wild sexual encounter in a port-a-potty at a beer garden. Those of us who were drinking in the vicinity joked that it was a surprising they didn't didn't tip it over. Nobody cared.

Thanks for the Stats Can link, but the data and analysis do not appear to contradict anything I've posted. As for the drug use linkage, I have to point to an American National Institutes of Health study, which concluded that "Our analyses indicated that children from intact families used significantly less inhalants, marijuana, and amphetamines than children from single-parent families." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3075408/ Your complaint that I'm conflating single parent-led families with the loss of traditional male role models is manipulating my initial post. I point out at the beginning of my post that the traditional economic roles assigned to males, particularly relating to employment options and opportunities, have declined. Later in my post, as a separate point, I noted the socially deleterious impacts of the growing trend of single parent-led households. Complex posts can often include separate ideas that are factually distinct from one another while remaining complementary. My main point is that the decline of the middle class, including the decline of economic options that were traditionally open to moderately or less educated males, alongside the growth in single parent-led households with their inherently more negative social outcomes, has had significantly broad impacts. I don't think this a controversial or insupportable assertion.

You're kidding, right? The politically correct left has led the charge on trying to restrict criticism of religious practices and beliefs by conflating such criticism with fomenting fear and phobia. You were around for the M-103 debate, right? The CBC's Neil MacDonald wrote an excellent article on the growing tendency to seek codified restrictions on free speech, as exemplified by M-103. http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/anti-islamophobia-motion-1.3994374 I'm not shining any flashlights into dark corners, as you suggest, but pointing to issues, views, trends and facts that are more or less in plain sight. You appear to operate on the premise that these forums should function as essentially academic-style debates, whereby theses must be presented and evidence provided to validate conclusions. Of course, the real world doesn't work in this fashion. And online forums certainly don't do so. To me, your expectation seems a form of bullying, which is intended to to shut down the expression of views you don't like and where you resort to ad hominem dismissals to counter those who express opinions with which you disagree.

"3) You are repeating things you have heard without checking. I did the check for you and found this. It's been declining for awhile now." The graph you copy provides no context. What, exactly, is it testing, and where? Below is a link to Stats Can's interpretation of 2016 census data on the incidence of single parent-led family households in this country, which notes that "Lone‑parent families and stepfamilies—created following the death of a parent, a separation or a divorce—are not new phenomena. However, these families are more frequent and more diverse than before." https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016006/98-200-x2016006-eng.cfm As for the relationship between single family households and crime, I take my information from various sources, including a federal government study (Dept. of Public Safety) on juvenile delinquency - which has long been understood as being related to increased propensity for adult criminality - that was released in 2011: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/fmls-rsk/index-en.aspx The 2011 federal study identifies the following factors as significant contributor to juvenile delinquency: Risk factors in this [family characteristics] category include: Single parenthood (i.e., a lone-parent family); Mental health of parents; The number of children in the family; The past/life-history experiences of parents; Having a young mother; and Instability in the family (e.g., unpredictable family income, multiple family transitions, broken home). You shouldn't assume when posting that people who express opinions aren't doing so on the basis of legitimately held and supportable views.

As the "middle" part of middle class has largely disappeared in "post-industrial" societies, it's difficult to imagine how men of modest intelligence or talents can or will maintain the roles traditionally assigned to them. There are massive implications in this, including declining family formation and birth rates. And the increase in single-parent (mainly female) led households generates other concerns from rising drug addiction levels to increasing crime rates among young men who grow up in these households. The old social structure, which admittedly never can or will be reconstituted, is dead. But we seem unable to imagine what we'll replace it with.

By your logic, then, shouldn't religion and religious speech be banned? Almost nothing about religion can be demonstrated to be true and yet religion in many aspects foments discord between people. The basic premise of all monotheistic religions, the existence of a God, is definitionally beyond proof. John Lennon's song 'Imagine" posits a paradise in which there is no religion. Did he get it right?

I pretty much agree with most things you've said here. I've always been liberal on so-called morality issues but have moved gradually to the right in my economic views. I've also come to oppose the strident campaigns of politically correct and virtue signalling progressivism. I'm not an opponent of immigration and certainly don't think it should be restricted by race or place of origin. But I believe immigration levels should be kept at levels that don't negatively impact those already living and working in this country. I think government spending should be reined in to a degree reasonably possible without sacrificing essential programs and taxation should be rationalized to ensure it doesn't suppress innovation, self-sufficiency or growth. The only issue on which we substantially disagree is the monarchy. I just don't get it. I was raised by an American mother and a half French-Canadian father and have simply never understood its value to a modern Canada. I've been in Britain many times, where it's part of the tourist industry, which perhaps renders it valuable to the Brits. Some ask "What harm does it do us?" and maybe there's some validity in that argument. But it seems a lukewarm endorsement, at best.

I agree with you on this. We have to strip down the both the personal and corporate subsidies that burden the federal budget. Redistributive policies and corporate welfare have largely been failed market-distorting efforts. Then we have to work on implementing a rational taxation system based on a philosophy of permitting taxation only when and to the extent necessary.

The federal government could force a carbon tax on Ontario or on any other province that resists its project. But with Ford's party in power in Ontario and like-minded governments either in place or likely to be elected in the foreseeable future in other provinces, Ottawa will be taking a big risk if it forces this issue. Federal Conservatives are trying to put the Libs on the spot by insisting they reveal the actual costs Canadians will pay as a result of a carbon tax and recent polling during the provincial election suggests that Ontarians view the carbon tax as another tax grab. Reportedly, Ford's Conservatives are already planning a court challenge against the federal tax that most believe will be lost, but, if the intent is to make the Libs own the policy as well as the political consequences for implementing it, the strategy may well be effective. The risk here is the Trudeau government's, not Ford's. A federal election looms in 2019.

Well, your last sentence is correct, but unfortunately science doesn't appear to sustain your opinion. I'm not religious at all, which may be the reason I see the impact of religion on this debate as being emotional rather than rational. But hasn't the current Pope said of homosexuality "Who am I to judge?" That seems pretty reasonable. I attended the gay pride festival/parade several years ago and to tell you the truth it was kind of boring. My sister, who was in town visiting from the U.S., wanted to see the parade, in particular, which featured a lot of organizations with very ordinary looking people marching behind big banners. There were floats, apparently sponsored by bars and big corporations, that featured loud music and go-go boys wearing tight shorts. There were a lot of drag queens, too, but that's not really a big deal these days. We probably stayed for half of it and then decided that maybe there was more going on elsewhere. I tend to agree with those who say that identity-focused festivals shouldn't obtain public funding but I believe the Toronto gay festival gets relatively little public funding compared to some other events.

I recently read an article on the increasing incidence of violent crime in Germany among migrants. Interestingly, the article noted that the crime issue appears to be problematic mainly among migrants of North African rather than Middle Eastern origin, which suggests that refugee claimants who are legitimately fleeing war and its related privations are more law abiding than are those, and especially young men, who are entering mainly as economic migrants. If this assessment is correct, it's an important distinction for our government, which seems inclined to treat all migrants more or less equally, to recognize as it tries to clean up the mess in Canada's refugee program.

I think much of what you complain about could come under the heading 'these things too shall pass'. Ontario has elected a PC government, replacing 15 long years of bizarrely ideological Lib governance, Quebec could soon have a more conservative and pro-business party in power, Alberta will likely change its government by next year and B.C.'s current government is hanging on by a thread. And a rational person would believe that by sometime in 2019 we'll have a different party in power in Ottawa. Unfortunately, Trump's Canada-bashing trade rhetoric may be giving JT a boost. Otherwise, the current government in Ottawa seems hopelessly unable to grasp the precarious circumstances the country faces and prior to the Trump-bump it was becoming increasingly clear, according to polling, that JT's crew was testing voters' patience.

It's far too early to assess whether Trump's rapprochement with Kim and the NK regime will have any lasting beneficial effect. Kim, like Trump, is unpredictable. The meeting between the two doesn't convince me of much. If anything, at this point it appears the South Korean regime has been instrumental in promoting peace with its neighbour. I don't know if this has gone far enough so far to warrant a Nobel, but SK's president would appear to have the greatest claim among those involved.

Your apparent argument might have more weight if they returned from China to live in Montreal or Quebec City. But if they moved from China to Vancouver or Toronto the actual language of integration would almost certainly be English.

I believe homosexuality constituted a small aspect of the Wynne government's sex-ed program. And parents today can't stop their kids from seeing an awful of stuff on the internet whether or not it might be considered offensive. Isn't it better to address such materials in an environment where they can be discussed in an open and rational fashion? As I recall, a big focus of opposition to the curriculum emerged in religiously conservative immigrant communities, as I believe was noted during the debate. I think this illustrates a weakness in our multicultural model. And it brings to mind the tragic murder of dozens of people in Orlando Fl. by a young man many believe may have been motivated by a fundamental conflict between his sexual and cultural identities. Most in mainstream Western societies accept the science, which indicates the strong likelihood that sexual orientation is determined by biology and as such shouldn't be addressed as a moral issue. Even if one is religious, the facts suggest it IS part of God's plan. As I said previously, I know little about transsexuality, but there are likely young people out there who are gender conflicted, even if it's a tiny minority. Is it the role of the education system in a compassionate society to make them feel isolated or self-reproachful for having these feelings?

I doubt there will be any such payment made before the next federal election. Trudeau has to understand how this issue plays out in public opinion. Even if he doesn't, his advisors surely must.

I know what you're saying and I'm sure you're correct that a lot of Canadians would agree with you. However, this is a problem we (in the collective sense, as successors to the British) created. Indigenous Canadians didn't create the reserve and welfare model. We basically promised them forms of accommodation and support in return for taking their land. And as their rights are enshrined in the constitution we can't just say we don't want to deal with their claims.

I think indigenous Canadians have valid arguments where it comes to harm and neglect. We have to remember that until well into the 20th century Canadian "Indians" were legally considered to amount to being wards of the state. Their rights and entitlements are stipulated in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which is incorporated into the Canadian constitution. In return for crown sovereignty over their lands, indigenous peoples were given the right to negotiate treaties for lands over which they'd retain control (i.e. "reserves") and the crown would ensure that their material needs would be met. The first of these conditions was only spottily accommodated and governments have in many cases only barely met the second. I think the historical approach to the "Indian problem" is that for decades, and even now to some extent, indigenous peoples have been viewed by governments and the general population as being an inconvenience. Governments attempted, sometimes by force, as with residential schools, to assimilate them, but met with little success, which was achieved alongside much abuse. Going forward, new solutions have to be sought. Now, indigenous Canadians have civil rights equal to other Canadians but the social and economic legacies of past institutional neglect and harm endure. I'm not convinced that some of the proposals put forward by activists are wise or practical, but the rights of indigenous Canadians are ingrained in the basic law of the land and can't be ignored. We all have to deal with that reality even if some find it irksome.

I was no fan of the Wynne government, but had no issue with its sex-ed curriculum. I believe its intent was, at least in part, to give young people the knowledge they need to be able to identify and resist those who might try to exploit and groom them. Parents, as it turns out, aren't always very good at this. I don't know much about the transsexual issue but I don't believe liberals or activists (although I don't consider myself to be either) are trying to promote transsexuality. I think the intent is to let young people know that it's okay to be different. Is that really extremist?

The American economy is potentially much more self-sufficient than is Canada's. Our prosperity has always been based on exporting commodities and the U.S. has for much of our history been seen as the only "natural" market for much that we produce. We've made efforts to expand trade in the past without achieving much independence from our reliance on the American market. In recent years, we've expanded trade with China but have had to face the reality that what China mainly wants from us are natural resources and some agricultural products, thus reinforcing our commodities dependent economic model. And I'm not sure what good it would do us to nationalize the oil sands when the importance of this commodity (oil) is likely to decrease over the next couple generations? Finally, Italy's new government was elected based in large measure on concerns about out of control migration as well as unrest about the role of the EU (hey Brexit!). The supposedly dark forces in play are a response to concerns that have emerged over a significant period of time. Perhaps some solutions can be considered now that the traditional governing parties, which didn't act, aren't in charge. That's what democracy is about.

I tend to be wary of the culture of political apology that's emerged in this country. To me, it's sufficient to say that something that happened in the past was wrong, at least from the perspective of the present. But in most cases, individuals who are alive today had/have no direct association with many of the wrongs that are now being acknowledged. It's particularly odd that when we are so careful not to ascribe negative traits, behaviors or blame to members of some groups for the actions of those who purport to act in their name, and in fact we're told we mustn't do so, we're quick in other circumstances to ascribe collective blame for often long-past historical injustices. To me, the whole enterprise of political apology seems contrived and manipulative and has established a double standard. On an individual level, however, where one's rights as a citizen or consumer are in the present negatively impacted by another, or others, I believe that expecting or requesting an apology is entirely reasonable. It's a form of accountability. If persons, agencies or companies aren't expect to and don't acknowledge specific fault when errors are made, our rights as citizens and consumers are undermined.

You appear to be citing examples of social and economic discrimination, which undoubtedly did (and do) exist. In fact, throughout virtually the entire Western world 'Social Darwinism', which postulated a racial hierarchy topped by people of European origins, was a dominant cultural ethos from the mid-19th century until the mid-20th century. It was a rational used to justify imperial power and authority (i.e. "the white man's burden") throughout that period. And In the U.S. it buttressed a system of institutionalized (i.e. formalized) discrimination that emerged from the impacts of large-scale slavery, rendering it a potent social and political force that has significant resonance even in the present. Realistically, there is simply no "systemic" parallel to the Canadian situation, which is not to argue that anti-black racism, in particular, didn't and doesn't exist in this country. Interestingly, while Social Darwinism has diminished throughout the West since WWII, forms of it, accompanied by notions of racial hierarchy, survive in many non-Western societies.

My guess here is that these French-Canadians who returned to the Toronto and Vancouver regions with their Chinese spouses also spoke/speak English. If the answer is affirmative, this suggests that the integrative language was/is likely English, as has been the case throughout much of the world over the past couple generations. For better or worse, English has become the world's 'lingua franca'. Knowledge of English facilitates migration and integration more than does any other language. As my French-Canadian paternal grandfather, who was fluent in English, used to say, "English is the language of money."

The opioid crisis has grown exponentially over the past three or four years given the increasing availability of fentanyl and carfentanyl. Without a doubt, the Conservatives' opposition to harm reduction strategies wasn't helpful as this crisis began to emerge under their watch, but Harper's government was very careful about restricting access to Canada's refugee program. Perhaps in retrospect we should acknowledge the wisdom of the harder line it took on this issue. My point is that the current government's refugee policy is significantly exacerbating other serious social problems in some of this country's biggest cities. I don't think there's any argument that can be made to dispute this assertion. If you're already experiencing serious problems, is it wise to knowingly worsen them?