betsy

I also feel the same way. You go everywhere and you find the usual McDonald's, and you know a KFC and a Burger King or Dairy Queen can't be that far away. When societies are supposedly "diversified"...how come we are inundated with "cookie-cutters" kind of lifestyle? Everything is a formula. From the kind of big-budget movies being shown...to the eat-all-you-can-buffets....to practically all the menus in town. Yes, items on most menu in family restaurants/bars seem identical! And a lot practically taste or look the same....depending on which major suppliers deliver the goods. Then look at the rows of houses. They all look the same with the garage being way upfront, as the focal point....I mean....feels like you've never really left at all.

You don't have blue hair, do you? Depends on what date. And if I'm having a bad hair day!

Like a house, the first ones who had built it had established the rules that naturally reflect their values. And so far, this western democratic house is doing great....otherwise, others from floundering societies would not leave their own place. It's just plain and simple. It is not practical to try to please and accomodate everyone...especially when you're talking of multiple cultures. Some cultures are deadly opposed of one another! And it is a threat to every other citizens if one culture is driven by a religious belief they're the only ones who have the right to exist on this planet! That all non-believers should either convert to their belief...or die! I know you don't want to be a Christian. That's okay. We won't crucify you for that. But do you want to be a Muslim? In a stew, you overcook it and the carrot and the beef disintegrate. You are left with one pot of what looks like....gravy. I done it. Believe me. And it wasn't a pretty sight....not even palatable.

What's wrong with Christmas carols? CBC plays music from ramadan or Hanukah....they play music from native cultures to Pakistan to whatever! And for the longest time they seemed to have an aversion to saying the name of Jesus Christ...which is what Christmas is all about! Taxpayers pay for the CBC. I don't have any beef hearing muslim or jewish or native or kabuna-buna music from booogawee-gawee islands. Just don't exclude mine, is all! Be fair. Besides music ain't what will turn Canada into Saudi Arabia. It's climate change, that's what will! Bwaha-ha-ha!

Let's go again then. Harper votes for the gun registry before he votes against it? Double flip flop! Oh joy! Still...2 flipflops in 5 days? And in just approx 7 days after being declared the leader! What's this? Like he's making up for lost time? I tell you, Dion is going for the Guiness record! That must be his agenda! Bwahahaha-ha-ha

I don't think you understand what we are trying to discuss here since you are missing the whole point, Drea. Religion has very little to do with this discussion. To simplify it, this is like someone who does not want to live in her home anymore, but instead had asked if she can live in your own home with your family. And being very generous that you are, you not only opened your house to this individual...but had also undertaken to see to her well-being, and made sure she feels welcome and a part of your family. After a while, she starts doing things in your house that goes against the rules and the values of your home. She curses, and do drugs in front of your children...and when you questioned her about it, her reply was that that's how it was where she grew up, and sees nothing wrong with that. She challenged you by saying she's got her own right to practice what she think is okay...and that it is you who is being unfair and intolerant. Then she starts showing your children how to go against your own rules and values. Wouldn't you tell her to either shape up and embrace the rules of your house or ship out? But of course you can't say that to her...because you signed a document adopting her formally. Whether you like it or not, she's yours now. Anyway, you learned from that mistake. So here comes another person who wants to join your family. What's the logical thing to do? Explain the rules right away...and make it conditional that he will adhere to the values of your home. Isn't that only practical????

The male has what they could've symbolized as...."resurrection"...and "death!" Bwahahaha-ha-ha I better get out of here. My mind is in the gutter!

Harper's flip flops are ever better. First he says no change in income trusts, then he says change to income trusts! Flip flop! Oh, this is fun! That's only one. Dion's feat was two in one. Actually, not even one week. 2 in 5 business days! You could say he must've been on a roll! All gungho!

God.

There seems to be something more going on here...do you have that feeling? Is Zaccardelli protecting some higher ups? Are there some other things left undisclosed? Somebody said that if Anne McLellan were still an MP, she would be asked to resign over this.

Backing down? Is that a..flip flop! No. I don't know much about Dion. Anyway Dion also changed his position overnight regarding his dual citizenship. Same week as he was going to "whip his party over SSM motion." 2 in one week. Impressive! I'm waiting for the elections. That's when Kerry showed off with his flipflops!

the first thing that comes to mind is "Thank God I am Canadian!" and I want to drink a case of beer. Canadians are at least a full paleontological era ahead of Britain with respect to xenophobia. No doubt, Canadian social engineering and integration and immigration policy may need work but at least Canadians are generally tolerant. Canadians have not had a direct experience with terrorist attacks. We're still in that stage where we feel sort of detached....that "those awful things only happen to others, but not to me," kind of mindframe. We feel smugly secured...and lulled by the knowledge that we are well-loved all over the world, that we are "neutral" and that our country is akin to a sanctuary. We think that no one would want to "mess up in his/her own backyard." And maybe we are right. Maybe we are immuned and protected from atrocious attacks because we are the "sanctuary." This however, may have really pushed Britain to make this move: "Piggybacking On Terror In Britain By DANIEL PIPES August 29, 2006 Two days after British authorities broke up an alleged plot to blow up multiple aircraft over the Atlantic Ocean, the "moderate" Muslim establishment in Britain published an aggressive open letter to Prime Minister Blair. It suggested that Mr. Blair could better fight terrorism if he recognized that the current British government policy, especially on "the debacle of Iraq," provides "ammunition to extremists." The letter writers demanded that the prime minister change his foreign policy to "make us all safer" One prominent signatory, the Labour member of Parliament Sadiq Khan, added that Mr. Blair's reluctance to criticize Israel increased the pool of people whom terrorists can recruit. In other words, Islamists working within the system exploited the thwarted Islamist terror plot to pressure the British government to implement their joint wishes and reverse British policy in the Middle East. Lawful Islamists shamelessly leveraged the near death of thousands to forward their agenda. Despite its reported fears of Muslim street unrest, the Blair government heatedly rejected the letter. Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett called it "the gravest possible error." The Foreign Office minister, Kim Howells dismissed it as "facile." Home Secretary John Reid deemed it a "dreadful misjudgment" to think that the "foreign policy of this country should be shaped in part, or in whole, under the threat of terrorism activity."Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander rejected the letter as "dangerous and foolish." Undaunted, the "moderate" Muslim establishment pushed even harder on the domestic front. In an August 14 meeting with high government representatives, including the deputy prime minister, it made two further demands: that a pair of Islamic religious festivals become official holidays and that Islamic laws pertaining to marriage and family life be applied in Britain.A Muslim present at the meeting later warned the government against any plans to profile airport passengers, lest this step radicalize Muslim youths further. Why these ultimata and why at this time? According to the Daily Mail, the leader of the August 14 Muslim delegation, Syed Aziz Pasha, explained his group's logic: "If you give us religious rights, we will be in a better position to convince young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens." More ominously, Mr. Pasha threatened the government leaders. "We are willing to cooperate, but there should be a partnership. They should understand our problems. Then we will understand their problems," he said. The press reacted furiously to these demands. The Guardian's Polly Toynbee condemned the open letter as "perilously close to suggesting the government had it coming."The Daily Mirror's Sue Carroll portrayed Mr. Pasha's position as "perilously close to blackmail." This was not the first such attempt by "moderate" British Muslim leaders at political jujitsu, to translate Islamist violence into political clout. The same happened, if less aggressively, in the aftermath of the July 2005 London bombings, when British Muslim leaders piggybacked on the death of 52 innocents to demand that British forces leave Iraq. That pressure did succeed, and in two major ways. First, the Home Office subsequently issued a report produced by "moderate" Muslims, "Preventing Extremism Together," that formally accepted this appeasing approach. As Dean Godson of Policy Exchange summarizes the document, Islamist terror "provided a wonderful, unexpected opportunity for these moderates to demand more power and money from the State." Second, 72% of British subjects now accept the Islamist view that Mr. Blair's "backing for action in Iraq and Afghanistan" has made Britain more of a target for terrorists, while a negligible 1% say the policies have improved the country's safety, according to a recent poll. The public solidly backs the Islamists, not the prime minister. I have argued that terrorism generally obstructs the progress of radical Islam in the West by stimulating hostility to Muslims and bringing Islamic organizations under unwanted scrutiny. I must admit, however, that the evidence from Britain — where the July 7 terrorism inspired more self-recrimination than it did fury against jihad — suggests that violence can also strengthen lawful Islamism. And here's another reconsideration: While I maintain that the future of Europe — whether continuing in its historic Christian identity or becoming an adjunct of Muslim North Africa — is still an open question, the behavior of the British public, that weakest link in the Western chain, suggests that it, at least, may be too confused to resist its Londonistan destiny." Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and author of "Miniatures" (Transaction Publishers). http://www.nysun.com/article/38748?page_no=2 That has nothing to do with tolerance imho. Nor can we really compare ourselves with Britain....for the conditions for comparison had not been met. If we have the similar conditions, experiences, incidents and political developments happening before AND behind the scenes....and we still unanimously embrace multi-culturalism and scoff at assimilation as something bigoted and xenophobic, then that's when I will agree with you whole-heartedly that indeed, Canada is the beacon for tolerance to multiculturalism.

We'll have to wait and see how things go in Britain. Blair may be stepping down but by the looks of it, this is a Labour Party stance. If this policy is embraced by the public, it might inspire other governments from other western countries.

"Labour loses faith in multi-culturalism (Filed: 18/10/2006) At his press briefing yesterday, the Prime Minister made it clear his Government's approach to cultural diversity had changed. He may have couched his position in careful language, but the conclusion was inescapable: integration, rather than multi-cultural separatism, is now official policy. By saying that he "fully supported" the decision of Kirklees council to suspend the Muslim teaching assistant who had refused to remove her veil at work, and then reinforcing this point with the observation that the veil was a "mark of separation", Mr Blair removed any doubt about the Government's position. He was, in effect, affirming that the contentious views expressed over recent weeks by Jack Straw, Ruth Kelly and John Reid were not maverick individual opinions, but part of a larger, concerted revision of the Cabinet's stand. Mr Blair, unsurprisingly, wanted to avoid the appearance of an outright volte-face: at one point, he suggested that there should be "a balance between integration and multi-culturalism". This would be a logical impossibility, since the policy of multi-culturalism, as it has been understood and practised, is antithetical to integration. Ministers are now clearly ready to embrace the argument that they have attacked for many years as insensitive, even bigoted: if Britain is to succeed in absorbing diverse peoples, ethnic minorities must accept the mores of their adopted country. Private religious observance should always be respected, but its practices cannot be permitted to contravene either civil law or the social rules that make community life workable. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...l1801.xml" And sometime today on the hourly news from the CBC, snip from Blair's speech mentioned of tolerance is what made Britain Britain...and people coming into our country will be required to assimilate to our way of life. The news mentioned also of the Muslim community being outraged. The message above is not verbatim but that's the gist of it. I cannot find any link on the web. Coming from England....this is something of monumental significance. If Blair's speech today is a reflection of British policy, this speech is as important to the direction of Europe as a free society as Reagan's stand against oppression under the Soviet regime was 25 years ago. This is an acknowledgment that European, and indeed the western wolrd's freedom is in jeopardy as much as it was under the threat of Nazism.

That's what I heard too this morning...but can't find it on the web....otherwise it would've been added to my flipflop question. That could've been two flipflopping in one week....quite a record considering no election date had been announced yet.

I hear the Liberals are not happy with it. They say, it's not enough. That if they get into power, they'll do more than that. Forgetting that it's BECAUSE OF THEM that we had the need to do this in the first place.

I was just asking....

Flipflop-wise? "It took just one day for newly minted Liberal leader Stéphane Dion to flip flop on his first difficult issue – same sex marriage. In 1999, Stephane Dion voted in against same sex marriage. But yesterday Dion told reporters that same sex marriage was a fundamental human right. Now Dion faces tough questions from his own caucus members -- will he allow Liberal MPs a free vote on whether to re-open the same sex marriage debate when it comes up in the House of Commons this week or whip his MPs into voting his way. Dion’s comments this morning on CBC Newsworld would suggest he will pull out the whip: “It’s a matter It for the Party, the Party must speak with one voice.” http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2459/62089 Of course Dion ended up leaving his party to vote with their conscience.

How does that prove anything ? The conservatives were already cited as interfering with the campaign in order to get Rae out of the picture... But that was the first thing that came to my mind...the issue of anti-semitism. How could I not think but that, thinking back to the incidents that had transpired with the recent Lebanon war? - The seeming one-sided view of most Liberal Leadership contenders - The Liberal MP who went to Lebanon - Nobody among them seemed to have stood behind and applauded harper for the way he stood up at the Francophonie and insisted that Israeli casualties be included in the list. - Ignatieff's war crimes accusation of Isreal...which he later recanted, and had planned to visit Israel to get a better understanding - meaning he threw those accusations irresponsibly just like a knee jerk reaction against Israel. - Harper's comment about the whole thing. He got that impression of the Liberals. I got that same impression. I share the same sentiment and opinion...because that's how I perceive it. Who gave those impressions? The Liberals. With how they had handled and reacted to the Lebanon war. And now, this.

On what news today? "If true" is right. CTV Newsnet this morning. I'll tune in on MDuffy this afternoon. Maybe there'll be more.

On the news today. A delegate approached the wife of Bob Rae during the leadership convention, not knowing who she was, and asked her not to vote for Rae because Rae's wife is Jewish! Electronic campaign smears have also allegedly been sent to other members and urged not to vote for Rae because his wife is the vice president of the Jewish Congress. If true, this proves what we've been saying all along:anti-semitism is rampant among the Liberals! And this may signal a big rip on what is being touted as a "united" Liberals. Who is behind this smear campaign? I hope Rae fights back unrelentingly...and hopefully the Conservatives will get to the bottom of this!

Hah! Funny how media were asking Dion how he can compete with Harper, when he (Dion) is percieved to lack in charisma! Remember how they bashed Harper over his lack of charisma last year? Wow! The media is worried how Dion can ooze next to my boy! So next to Dion, Harper is looking goooood! And from what reporter Fife described of Dion: he has the tendency to "micro-manage." The same description they made of Harper! So Harper vs Dion (I like to give Harper top billing please ).....this will be interesting!

Yes, I think we all know that Bush is quite hated by a lot when Iraq got started....and more so unpopular now because of how Iraq had turned out. But most leaders and ministers of other nations had behaved civilly with the US...even if they were at odds with its handling of Iraq. It's only Canada it seems that had acted out like a brat, sticking out its tongue at the US and Bush and had done all sorts of juvenile behaviours....which was quite embarrassing! Oh yeah, Chavez called Bush the devil....but it's more like an election posturing because he was running for office. I guess he got inspired by Martin! Anyway, it must be something to be proud of that at least our previous PM's seems to be of the same class as Chavez!

Only because Martin was pressured! Parrish's action was like a challenge on authority...since she was highly criticized after saying, "I hate those American bastards!" Anyway, Martin himself ended up taking cheap shots and insulting Bush/US over environmental issues....using it to score points during election time! Which only shows....from Chretien to Martin - to be "lecturing" about something which obviously they both don't have a clue about....that's quite rich!

I find it....stressful... (I can't find the exact word to describe it)...listening to him in House of Commons. It's like painfully waiting for the next word being uttered by a stutterer to be expelled out! When he gets excited about something and he thinks it's going to score him some points, that's when it really get all jumbled up!