daddyhominum

Really? Presumably, laws that create a free society. In your opinion, hould english Canada have a language law similar to the law in Quebec that requires the use of English only?

As far as I know, a business can refuse to serve anyone for any reason. I read through the Consumer Protection Act for BC at http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/C/96069_01.htm. It does not mention any such requirement. You may be thinking of possible objections to a refusal to sell under the Charter of Rights for a specific instance. But I don't think there is any requirement to serve anyone because of their national origin. I would be pleased to be corrected if you have a cite.

As far as I know, a business can refuse to serve anyone for any reason.

The othe morning, Phillip Till was stirring up a pot on CKNW, Vancouver, asking for comments on immigrants and English skills. I was struck by the irony created when many callers phoned or emailed him expressing a demand that immigrants learn English. The irony arises because,for years, English-radio talk shows beat the Quebec language law about the head and shoulders(metaphorically) because it makes the use of French mandatory. So the two solitudes seem to include a french only law in Quebec that is hated by an English Canada that demands English -only from immigrants. How lovely! My position is that language laws are unneccesary in a free society.That immigrants and others are free to speak whatever language they want, run business in whatever language, and do anything of a personal or private nature according to their own wishes. At the same time, all business of a public nature relating to the government of Canada and all its subordinate patrs must be conducted in English or French as provided by law. Why should immigrants be required to speak English if they don't want to do so?

Sadly, more enlightened people do not need my help in learning the responsibilities entailed in Canadian citizenship that you do, my dear Argus. I will stay to help you yet a wee while, perhaps. The law was quoted by someone earlier. Was there a part of section 19 that I could help you to understand? The law is very clear on what constitutes hate speech and is not at all difficult to understand. Allow me to quote it to you again. "CANADA, R.S., c. 11(1st Supp.), s. 1. 319. (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation,wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of: - an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or - an offence punishable on summary conviction" Everyone means no one is left out of the law so it includes you. Other then in a private conversation means any statement made publicly such as in an internet forum. Indictable means such a person may be charged. Imprisonment means a lifestyle change for uo to 2 years. Punishment by summary conviction means without indictment and without jury. As an example of the kind of statement covered by the law, take a look at you febrile bait phrase. "foam-at-the-mouth Muslim religious wackos" The phrase clearly promotes hatred. Identifiable group is made a unclear because the statement identifies a group that is protected from hate speech, to wit, Muslims, then does a little dance to the side by using two qualifiers. The adjective 'religious' clearly identifies the group but the word 'wacko' permits for interpretation of part of the group that is undefined. The gimmick aims to leave uncertain if the speaker means all Muslims are religious wackos or whether the term wacko is meant to limit the meaning to a portion of religious Muslims. This is a favorite gimmick of the white-supremacist racist who believes he cannot be held accountable due to a lack of specificity. Fortunately, that is not true. As the meaning is not clear, a judge or a jury are free to determine what the authour of the phrase intended. If the court decides that the message was intentionally unclear to permit an interpretation of hatred toward the religious (or other) group, the court can rule on the intent based on evidence drawn from cross-examination and previous speech. Poor old David Irving is still whining because he was convicted by a jury for what he meant and not just what he said. IMO, your piece of bait is an excellent example of how racists try to skim past the law. Nonetheless, the court is free to determine the meaning of an uncertain statement on evidence from other public statements. You are clearly indictable. Want to talk about other racists who thought they were too clever to be convicted of hate speech? I hope this has been helpfull to you.

I am astounded to learn the facts. i always thought that religion involved a belief in the supernatural, I guess because that is what the dictionary claims. As I have no belief in a supernatural event , let alone a supernatural being, I thought I was free of religion. Actually I still think I have no religion, private or organized to force on others. But I do recognize that Canadian law and tradition recognizes that citizens are free to believe whatever they want, including not cutting one's hair and wearing a turban to cover it. Religious practices are actually protected by tradition. You can find underage drinkers sipping wine at every communion service which is against the law. Surprisingly, Muslims who totally oppose the consumption of alcohol do not try to force Christians to stop that practice. Certainly I admire anyone who is determined not to wear a turban standing by those principles. But insisting that another cannot wear a turban is very un-Canadian. Or is that my religion: My belief that Canadian law and tradition of inclusiveness for all religions and races is worth defending. Maybe you think that is a supernatural event...brotherhood and mutual respect. I won't force it on you but the laws of Canada will. (This is where you jump in and declare I've threatened you.

It is not the point but it is a very valid point. Also the more lethal your equipment the more deadly the the incidents. Could the situation be improved? Probably, it almost always can but fratricide in war will always be a reality. As far as the Brits go, I don't know. Do you? Remember, the US is trying to supply air support for our troops because we let our military reach a state where we are incapable of doing it ourselves. I guess we will just have to wait and see what contributed to this latest tragedy. No and neither am I trying to demonize the Americans. But in the past, their procedures has been suspect, particularly in the length of a sortie and the drugs they use to stay awake. That being said, we could provide our own air support with our CF-18s but the Harper gov't, for whatever reason has not authorized it. Thogh Canadians have not killed any NATO colleagues to my knowledge, they have been accused of friendly fire deaths against the Afghan police, army and civilians. The cause of casualties can be read in detail at: http://www.icasualties.org/oef/Afghanistan.aspx

It is simply UNSETTLING to see an RCMP officer wearing a turban and also reflects a disturbing identification pertaining to a foreign nationality rather than Canadian which is also unsettling. Sikhism is a highly regarded religion practiced in many countries but even the Pujab where the great majority of the adherents live is a nation. Turbans are also popular in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other Indian states. The turban certainly does not tell you a person's nationality nor, even his religion for certain. Again you are dictating your private view concerning YOUR private religion. The turban is YOUR problem not Canadian societies problem. What is a "private religion"? And why do I have a turban problem ??????

Sadly, more enlightened people do not need my help in learning the responsibilities entailed in Canadian citizenship that you do, my dear Argus. I will stay to help you yet a wee while, perhaps.

If you want to nitpick, then yes, that's what I meant. I can’t review your whole dance away from culpability so let me respond to the following bit of bafflegab. I quote you: <begin quote>My statement: "Historically, it's the Religion of Peace because everybody who wouldn't sign up is dead." My statement says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about whether people have joined the Islamic faith through other means. My statement only addresses the fate of those who refused to convert. Your paraphrasing is completely wrong. This is what's known as a "straw-man fallacy."<end quote> What does the word ‘everybody’ mean to you? When we refer to everybody we include all. If you include all in your statement, then how does your statement allow for any other means of conversion? The Strawman fallacy requires that I put words in your mouth but you did say everybody. I paraphrased what you said. As for the rest of your dancing, keep practicing. All you really need to do is stop speaking hatred about identifiable groups in a public place to co0nform to Canada’s laws. Nobody cares what your private opinion is.

Drug and alcohol addiction is a vicious circle - the more you put into your system the more you crave it. Long time addicts have compulsion to use that overpowers their rational mind and they will do the craziest things to get a fix. They have about as much choice when it comes using as a wolf has a choice when it kills a deer. The only way to break this vicious circle is to _stop_ using. Once an addict is detoxified and the physical effect of the drugs are gone then the addict does have a choice. Understanding this distinction is the key to understanding what addiction is.Force an addict into a corner - offer them support and forgiveness if they clean up - promise them hell on earth if they refuse (and follow through). You will be surprised how effective that approach can be. That is how interventions work. Unfortunately, interventions don't work so well for people who live in a world where drug abuse is normal and accepted. As practiced, family and/or loved ones interventions are used to persuade an addict to go for treatment. AFAIK, interventions do not attempt to treat the addict directly. You may be thinking of school programs that instruct in the dangers, etc. of drug use as they are some times called interventions. Those programs have almost no long term benefit according to research. http://tinyurl.com/l7grk 1: J Drug Educ. 2005;35(3):233-53. Links Long-term impact of a district-wide school/community-based substance abuse prevention initiative on gateway drug use. * Lohrmann DK, Alter RJ, Greene R, Younoszai TM. Department of Applied Health Science, Indiana University, Bloomington 47405, USA. [email protected] "The intervention was effective in reducing cigarette and alcohol use over time and in suppressing marijuana use levels below national rates; however, these gains tended to erode in later high school grades."

It is simply UNSETTLING to see an RCMP officer wearing a turban and also reflects a disturbing identification pertaining to a foreign nationality rather than Canadian which is also unsettling. Sikhism is a highly regarded religion practiced in many countries but even the Pujab where the great majority of the adherents live is a nation. Turbans are also popular in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other Indian states. The turban certainly does not tell you a person's nationality nor, even his religion for certain.

I agree 100%. Some legal judgments have slipped down a path of inflating religious freedom into a balloon of special religious privileges. Again, another topic. I would love to discuss further when and where religious freedom has turned to religious privelege. Why don't you expand your ideas along with your reasoning in a new thread ?

Great. That is what happens in a free society. Debate based on fact and reason.

Should never have happened, most Canadians would agree I'm sure. Most rational people would. It's not prejudiced or racist to have set limits and restrictions for everyone to follow. Mounties wear the Stetson, not a turban. That ruling never should have happened. That's not racist, that's having non-discriminatory policies. Can I wear a turban if I wear an RCMP officer, even though I'm not a Sikh? Not likely. So one religion/race has advantage over another. It's wrong and immoral. Those that pretend to be the most 'tolerant' generally are the most racist, also generally victims of their own policies in that regard. Eventually the 'tolerant' may see that their tokenism of ethnicities is mostly to their detriment. The only non-racist policy is to ignore race completely. Have set rules and have people follow them, whether they are Indian, White, Black, whatever. The wearing of the turban is a requirement for the true practice of the Sikh faith. By denying a person the ability to practice his/her faith when it harms no-one else is not an issue of dress-code. In the instance of the turban, the prejudice was against a religious practice, not a matter of race. My example illustrated that prejudice against the practice of a particular religion was treated AS IF it was racism as to outcomes. If anybody wants to discuss the matter of dress and discrimination it would be better to start a new thread, imo. This thread is about racism and prejudice in the broadest way. But it would be great to have a discussion about a particular detail like dress or any custom, religious practice.

Huh? When you use the word "prejudice" above, I think you really mean "discrimination". I do. Prejudicial discrimination. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?...=discrimination dis·crim·i·na·tion Pronunciation (d-skrm-nshn) n. 1. The act of discriminating. 2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment. 3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

No you are wrong. Muslim Shariah Law was rejected by the Premier of Ontario Dalton Mc.Guinty who represents Ontario residents. So according to your logic based on the 'turban issue' makes Mr. Mc.Guinty and the residents of Ontario guilty and labelled racist. You are the one that is being illogical or unreasonable. I probably am wrong but nothing in your statement establishes that. I infer that your argument is that Shariah Law is a 'custom' or 'practice' of Muslims so refusing to enable it was a political act of prejudice. To establish the error in your statement I only have to demonstrate that a single political entity consisting of Muslims , such as a nation claiming to be Muslim, does not require Sharia law. That is the essence of the null hypothesis to a any generalization(induction). If you believe that all Muslims require Sharia law and some are observed not to do so, then your premise is wrong. So Ontario did not act with prejudice against Muslims but against some Muslims who wanted to use Sharia law. Further, I observe that the Premier of Ontario cannot enable any law to supercede Canadian law. I also observe that objections to the proposal were voiced primarily by Muslims, especially women of the Muslim faith. So, while I am no doubt illogical and unreasonable, your argument fails to establish that as true.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=prejudice prej·u·dice Pronunciation (prj-ds) n. 1. a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. b. A preconceived preference or idea. 2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection. 3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion. 4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others. tr.v. prej·u·diced, prej·u·dic·ing, prej·u·dic·es 1. To cause (someone) to judge prematurely and irrationally. See Synonyms at bias. 2. To affect injuriously or detrimentally by a judgment or an act. Thank you all for responding. I find the above dictionary meaning quoted above agrees with my understanding of the meaning of the word,” prejudice" in line three. Therefore, in spite of your kind efforts, I am still unable to determine why it is dumb to see racism and prejudice as at least, parallel, if not, congruent, in meaning. If you go to the URL I included above and page down to the Thesaurus you will find the word "racism" given as a synonym. So, racism is prejudice always, but prejudice can be racism and it may not be racism when used in a non-racist context. But the statement as quoted above refers to, "bias or prejudice based on dislike of known cultural ore religious traits" So is prejudice against cultural or religious traits (sic) a context for prejudice that does not represent racism? The Canadian experience suggests that such prejudices may not be racism but nor can they be used to deny a Canadian the full enjoyment of a particular culture or a particular religious practice. Most of you will recall the case of the RCMP officer who wore a turban to work and was eventually confirmed in his right to do so as a practicing Sikh. So it is plain that prejudice against a culture or a religious practice expressed as a political act in Canada will very likely be treated the same way racism is treated. And in the thread context where this side issue arose, the matter was prejudicial statements towards Arabs and/or Muslims that called for political action. So the use of prejudice and racism were equivalent in the context they were found. imo

I appreciate your comments. I worked contracts at a drug rehab. I especially recall a father of a young family intentionally overdosing after completing three cycles of rehab and going back to drugs. The harm to him was minimal but his family's loss will never end. These things are true: Drugs are readily available in jail. Banning something increases the price and the profit to be made. I have never met someone who remained addicted to drugs by choice. The cost of preventative medical support for addicts is cheaper then the alternative. Most addicts live relatively long lives and tend to die of diseases spread by needles and poor nutrition. There is no curative addiction treatment in the world: like alcoholism addiction can only be managed. Every addict is someone's child. Death only harms the living "Recreational drug" does not exist for an addict. Many, posibly most, drug addicts have a diagnosed mental disorder. Drug recovery programs teach clients: Dead addicts are poor learners As the research demonstrates that the Insite operation helps society manage addicts and helps addicts manage addiction, there is no choice but to continue and expand the program.

Same as when people of your general beliefs change the topic from September 11 or the latest suicide bombing to the "injustices" done to the "Palestinians". My "beliefs" ? I've been thinking my beliefs went overboard with my soul on a ferry trip some years back. I am pleased you have found them and I am anxious to renew my knowledge of them. Did you find my soul, too? Please identify them for me. ---------- be·lief Pronunciation (b-lf) n. 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever. 2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief. 3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

In a different topic, Argus posted: I invite Argus or others to enlarge on this matter as I do not understand what the difference is between prejudice and racism. No doubt I can learn a lot.

Why are you changing the topic from racism to multi-culturalism? It is such a common part of the dance performed by racists to try to alter a discussion by introducing some other topic. It makes one think of taking a gene from a fish and putting it into a tomato and saying the original tomato is unmodified. Don't you think a new topic should be introduced in its own thread? Would the moderator please move this post and the one before it to a new thread unless you think the lack of a statement of fact or opinion in the posts makes useless as a introduction to a discussion.?

Complete the deduction: Axiom (A) Arabs are our enemy. Axiom (B)It is correct to bomb our enemies. Determine the corollary for each instance in the list below. Salman Rushdie is an Arab. The Aga Khan is an Arab. King Hussein of Jordan is an Arab. Omar Alghabra, MP, is a descendant of Arabs Wajid Khan, MP, a descendant of Arabs Rahim Jaffer, MP, a descendant of Arabs General John Abizaid is a descendant of Arabs John E. Sununu Doug Flutie Bobby Rahal Ralph Nader John Mack Paul Anka Jamie Farr Marlo Thomas Tony Shalhoub, Racism makes them all deserve bombs . How dumb is that? How moral? How despicable to condemn poor Mr. Monk to a violent end for the one thing he really had no choice and no control over: his birth parentage. No wonder the guy is a mental wreck! To paraphrase Johnny Fever, "When the racists are all out to bomb you, paranoia only makes good sense." In replying will those of you who are too distracted to follow my posting style please start a new topic specific to your criticism of me? It is hard enough to follow one issue per topic without being called upon to answer to those of you who find me sophomoric, an unskilled user of quotes, a poster of garbage, a liar, a cheat, a cesspool of evil intent. Don't insist on cluttering this issue with your venting. I guess you know who you are. Thank you for your consideration.

Which statement did I make that was a strawman argument? Please quote it to me.

Today when my daughter came home from school, she was upset and confused. She told me she had renewed the discussion about Muslims being bombers again telling them how recognizing the facts of her own experience with Muslims, she now felt the statement was wrong and very harmful to society. “But, Dad,” she said, “As soon as I had described those facts and the reason for my change of mind, one of the boys became very angry”. “That’s odd”, I thought aloud, “University students usually love to argue and discuss issues like racism as they try to discover the truth” “Not this guy!” said my daughter. “He jumped up, shouted I was spouting garbage, and he was going to report me to the Dean who would make me shut up.” “ That must have been kind of scary”, I replied. “Did he threaten you in any other way?” She said, “No, but everybody else said that we better talk about something else.” “That’s pretty normal behaviour at any age. We’d rather avoid a topic then upset someone”, I said. “What did you say ?” “It’s fine with me,” she said, “I’m not his Mommy or his teacher. It isn’t my job to straighten him out”. “So you still think he is wrong but you are willing to forgive and forget? “Yeh, basically. I need friends more then I need confrontation over something that doesn’t affect me” “Ah, if only life were really that simple!” I declared, “Someday ask me to tell you the story Fritz told me about Amsterdam and the Nazi invasion. In the meantime, look up the poem attributed to Martin Niemoller even though it does not fit his character. The words have been often paraphrased. I like this variant: "Madame Guillotine" by the Legendary Pink Dots: First they rounded up the reds But I'm not red so... Then they rounded up the blacks But I'm not black so... Then they rounded up the gypsies And the junkies and the donkeys. Now I'm scared to whistle 'swanee' 'Cause they'll ask me for my spit...” I wonder if the Dean will ask you for your spit this time”