betsy

Last Friday on Mike Duffy, I was surprised with Jane Taber's comment regarding this "gag order" and "banning of the press in the lobby. She explained that ALL NEW ADMINISTRATIONS had done something like this one way or the other. Then she went on to explain what it was that Chretien and Paul Martin did. Mike Duffy was the one who looked miffed with this press ban in the lobby. Coming from Jane (who only several days ago seemed to be fuming about this new criticism of Harper) it was a complete turn-about. She had some good things to say about Harper with Bush in Mexico. My husband joked, "Is she dating a conservative?" Because she suddenly sounded like a conservative!

yes. And what about it? It just strikes me as interesting that you take the side of those who don't think you belong here. Why do you assume that just because I belong to this so-called "visible minority"...that I could not see through this nonsense of multi-culturalism? Being a "visible minority" doesn't mean we automatically "take the sides" of those righteous purporting to fight for our best interest. I am not the only visible minority who happens to think that multi-culturalism is not going to work. It's just plain common sense. This is courting disaster!

I guess your sudden reference to my being a Filipino took me by surprise. You made ridiculing quips laced with insulting tones in other threads. But I guess I was wrong about this one...so I apologise. Of course it didn't help that you happen to have come along right after Gerry's post.

Yeah, wow huh? Actually I interpreted it as "DITCH ALL YOUR CULTURAL TRADITIONS OR GO HOME!!" It's a vile, intollerant web you weave. I'm sure you just must be jesting....or readers will think you do not understand what you read.

Thanks for reminding me.....another idea I have how we can go about aggressive integration and assimilation: Remember how it's been said that bigotry and intolerance is passed on since it is something usually learned from parents? Responsibilities must be placed greatly upon elders or parents who come to Canada to make sure that their children understands what is expected of immigrants. That is another decision a parent has to make before uprooting his family to settle in Canada. The risk of losing their status, if they display their bigotry or intolerance for certain groups when they come to this place. Any children of minor age will also end up losing his status if his parents lose theirs. There must be a grace period where-in one can still lose their citizenship should they commit any serious crimes. 10 years? For those who've been here past that limit will just have to be treated like any long-standing bonafide Canadian and face the Canadian law.

I don't think there's any risk in Canada of a woman being legally obliged to marry someone she doesn't want to. Bubbler, why do you add the adverb "legally" to your post?Re-read (re-post) your phrase without the adverb. What did you mean by "cannot" if not legally cannot? Morally cannot? Cannot without being scolded by their parents? I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse, but I don't see any other context than a legal one when dealing with societal issues. BTW, I kind of prefer the name Bubbler. I wonder if I can change it. We've heard of cases where-in women were murdered for refusing an arranged marriage. Didn't we just have case like that in BC recently? For some, it goes beyond just simple "scoldings." Hence the word, "cannot".

Nothing. Except how do you propose to accomplish this? It has to start with applicants for immigration, an information package explicitly explaining and enumerating what foundation Canada stands on. It ought to be spelt out that assimilation and integration is expected of immigrants, and most importantly for the new-comers to readily accept and embrace the same values Canada adheres to (even if it means going against their own religion)...after all, why would they choose to come here if they do not wish the lifestyle Canada has to offer? Immigrants' cultural traditions (that do not clash with any or all of Canada's own values) will be tolerated but they will not be imposed upon the Canadian society, (that includes funding for such traditions/events). Immigrants must willingly shed off and will not bring in hostilities against other groups who had also chosen to live amongst us, even if it means going against their own religion. Any false claims or statements in their documents can have their status revoked...even to the point of losing their Canadian citizenship, leading to deportation. Upon arrival, a new-comer should attend a few months orientation class, where-in he will be acquainted with how the system works...from the basics that also includes simple things such as using an ATM machine etc.. A lot of immigrants are not used to these kinds of things and that could be really intimidating and daunting. This greatly limits a new-comer...and some end up clinging to their "own people" because of these simple kinds of insecurities. This orientation class is the first key step to integration and assimilation. Just think of all these new comers from different cultures and backgrounds...all grouped together in this class and learning and making their first steps together. The applicant must be willing to learn either English or French (or both) upon arrival. A trial residence status of at least 3 years before qualifying for citizenship, where-in the new-comer must show that he is not a liability to this society. A steady employment and no criminal offenses (including minor criminal offenses) is a must during this period. Any social fundings Canada will do regarding immigration will have to be aimed towards aggressive encouragement of assimilation and integration. Applicants for immigration must have a cooling period of at least 3 months after receiving the information/expectation package...so they can really decide if this is the kind of life they wish to live. That's just some of the things I could think of.

Because opposition to multiculturalism is usually based on the idea that we should all blend together and become one people. I think skin colour has a profound influence on both personal identity and others' perceptions and, so long as people look different from one another, they can't truly blend. Their differences are apparent and unchangeable and no amount of social programming will ever change that. Therefore, you either have a society that accepts and celebrates these differences (i.e., multiculturalism) or a society that discourages them (like the previous policy of predominantly white immigration). What is wrong about blending together as one people, adhereing to common ground that binds us together? We're talking about integration and assimilation. With our ways. With values. And we're past beyond that skin color thing. Besides, aren't non-whites already been "lumped" together as one people that belong to the "visible minority?" Although coined with good intentions, it is divisive nevertheless. We can all be just Canadians.

yes. And what about it? It just strikes me as interesting that you take the side of those who don't think you belong here. Why do you think that someone thinking multi-culturalism is not going to work means that they think somebody like me do not belong here?

yes. And what about it?

WOW! See Bubber and Gerry jump into attack and insult mode pronto! Guns blazing. Right on cue. You probably automatically interpret my topic as meaning...."NO MORE IMMIGRANTS". Get a grip, guys.

Whoever thought it would work must've been inspired by the likes of John Lenon....whose song IMAGINE had become the theme for Liberal-thinkers (and believe it or not, had been voted as the song of the century by CBC), peacekeepers and do-gooders....and irritating busy bodies. Great to have peace forever more, but it's a reality you'll get only when you're 6 feet under the ground. But even that is questionable, depending on varying factors by varying individuals who have varying beliefs (religious or philosophical) from varying culture from varying locations all over the world. So Multi-culturalism. Taking all these varying groups and putting them all together in one locale....free, and actually encouraged to go on practicing their own culture. So everybody do their own thang...perhaps looked kinda promising when these groups comprise only of miniscule minorities. New and marvelling to the novelty this country offers. Then time passed. Some groups are not so miniscule anymore. And they are no longer just content to practice their own culrure in peace. They start to make demands....changes in the whole system. Some clashing cultures have brought their own little wars in this country....the bickerings had started....the little violence not yet so alarming in proportion. What happens now, 50 years from now? A Canada divided into sections? Muslim turf, Jewish Turf, Sikh Turf, Vietnamese Turf, Tamil turf etc...? Who rules and own Canada by then?

Note that it doesn't limit the right of marriage to only hetrosexual couples. 1) MEN and WOMEN of full age, without any limitation due to race,nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. Where does it say without any limitation to SEXUAL ORIENTATION??? It named only three...race, nationality or religion! It's been taken for granted that men would marry women and vice versa. Who would've thought that a time like this will come when it ought to be spelled out precisely who have the right to marry? If ever this issue on same-sex marriage is dealt with again under the current government...and repealed, hopefully they'll re-word the charter to make it impossible for anyone to tweak it. Some countries did just that.

What's the matter, SCCs interpretation of the Charter of Rights not good enough for you? Here's what AI specifies: Note that it doesn't limit the right of marriage to only hetrosexual couples. Gays had never lost their RIGHT to marry! As long as they marry women. Take note of Article 16, #3: "3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State." Nowhere throughout history can you find a civilization that had showed and accepted a family comprising of same-sex couples. The SCC had reneged on its duty to protect the family. Who were sitting on the benches, and how many among them were Liberal appointees?

Btw, this is sort of off-topic... On MDuffy, while talking about Harper's media "phobia"...somebody said that during the election campaign scrums, Martin would dictate that only two questions in French would be entertained. Anybody heard about that??

UPDATE: Yesterday on MDuffy, journalist fro La Presse revealed that Harper still scrums with reporters, and he compared Harper with Martin. Harper really talks to reporters...whereas Martin usually gave 2 minutes hurried scrum, then runs away. ------------------------------------------- Just watch MDuffy today. According to John Reynolds, Harper's up by 21% in the poll in BC! Journalist Fife expressed that he never thought he'd be "fascinated by Harper" regarding Foreign policy. You could tell this guy really admires Harper. The journalist from Globe and Mail surprisingly gave only one small criticism of Harper...that he appears to be having a "grudge"...or a chip on his shoulders. But she did add to the praise of Fife, saying that Harper has clarity. MDuffy commented that Harper's firm approach seem to be catching on, commenting on his poll in BC.

I would have to give his parents credit for that (though that's the first time I've seen anyone try to win a debate by citing their lack of research--though, granted, Dan Rather is a pretty obscure fellow). Bubber, you knew what I meant. I have not named Dan Rather for it was just an example I gave at the top of my head regarding media....the issue is not him! Your quips not only detracts from the discussion I'm trying to have with Gerry....but I find them ridiculing and insulting.

Yes, and that's why we've reached this discussion about media. That Dan Rather story was just an example about the questionable tactics of some media....hence, I don't blame Harper for acting the way he did about instructing his MPs.

Well that's your opinion. Now prove that it's a lie! If we just keep taking people's word for everything they say...especially a nice rebuttal such as "You lie!" with no other supporting arguments as to how....we wouldn't be having a forum, would we now? We'll just have a name-calling site! Or a kiddie YES! NO! debacle.

Dan Rather was officially named by Bubber. And pointedly asked me about whether I referred to him. Besides, he's part of my answer to your statement : "The media is the vehicle for accountability. " As to your first question above....yes, I know you called me on it. But there's no need to answer you, since that part had already been explained to you in the previous post. Read!

This is a pretty funny comment coming from you. Look at your last couple of posts. Are we talking about Dan Rather now, or about Liberals wrongdoings being ignored? Well, I don't know. You tell me. I thought you wanted to talk aout this: "What I want to know is this: What happens to detainees our soldiers capture? Will they be handed over to US forces? Are there guarantees that torture will not occur?"

You're the one who brought up Dan Rather, not me. As an example of an irresponsible media (to say the least), being high-profile at that, supposed to be the vehicle for accountability.

The fake documents diverted attention away from the fact that Bush was AWOL from the national guard for nearly a year. So it actually helped Bush's reputation because it turned out he didn't have to answer for his sketchy military record. Stick to the issue! We're not discussing whether Bush was AWOL or a Drag Queen or etc.., We're talking about media, which according to Gerry, is the vehicle of accountability. Whether what you say about Bush is true or not, is moot. Dan Rather still had the same responsibility to check the authenticity of this partricular evidence.

Just like a common ploy for ardent Liberal supporters to ignore about the Liberals' strings of wrongdoings...and to twist facts around to suit their arguments? Paul Martin was ROASTED during his tenure??? Can you cite some examples? Aside from the Adscam scandal! Of course, whether you like it or not, that scandal was just too hard to sweep under the floor...even for the partisan media!

Are you talking about how Dan Rather was fed fake documents by the Repubicans in an attempt to take away any legitimacy of true reports of Bush's desertion in the National Guard? Yes, it is about Dan Rather. I don't know anything about any republicans having fed him the documents.... care to support your statement on that? ANYWAY, whether whoever or whatever fed him anything is not the point! Rather had the responsiblity to check out the authenticity of his evidence....especially when what you'll deliver will wreck a person's character and reputation. Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect CBS Anchor Urges Media to Focus On Bush Service By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A01 CBS anchor Dan Rather acknowledged for the first time yesterday that there are serious questions about the authenticity of the documents he used to question President Bush's National Guard record last week on "60 Minutes." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Sep15.html