Wilber

I get the impression the answer would be no.

Link

Link

That's news, I'd like to see a reference for that one.

I think wearing a turban probably makes it easier for these police to work in the Sikh community. That is a positive thing. Personally, I am not intimidated by the sight of an officer in a turban, I think it looks rather smart and makes them look taller and more imposing. A good thing in that line of work. There is no need for a police officer to wear a hat at all. Other than their dress uniform, our police department does not wear hats unless the weather requires it and then it is baseball hats or watch caps if necessary. I think headgear is a valid issue when it is required for safety or to actually do a job. In such cases there is often a valid argument for refusing to allow an activity unless the required headgear is used. I know a Sikh who was a CF-18 driver and I don't think he would have got the job if he insisted on wearing a turban. The helmet with its systems is necessary to fly the aircraft and I can't imagine having to eject at over 300 knots without one.

VANOC has said Allen isn't going anywhere and I agree. He was asked to get involved because of his connections in the entertainment industry. In that capacity I'm sure he will do a great job and it is a volunteer position. He doesn't need the work. Part of his job at CKNW is to stir up controversy which he does regularly. I think that is a positive thing because issues get aired instead of festering under the surface because everyone feels they have to tiptoe around them. I listened to his rant and thought it was boorish, but that's just Allen in his radio persona. I also thought the police wearing turbans was a dead issue. It certainly is among police officers. Although he could have done a better job of it, he is expressing a real feeling among many people in that they are getting tired of hearing special interest groups lobbying to have laws changed to suit their customs rather than adopting the laws of the land. Pretending that feeling doesn't exist won't make it go away. Better to talk about it. Periodic venting is better than waiting for the big bang. Apparently this has been big on Facebook with many advocating he lose his Olympic job and threatening violence against him. If that is their concept of tolerance and free speech, Allen has a good point.

link

There once was a country that had freedom from religion, it also had freedom from speech. Remember the Soviet Union? I am not a religious person but once you restrict basic freedoms in one area, the rest are fair game.

I would to but expecting someone else to pay for it is another question. Our medical system is currently groaning under the weight of those who are really sick and priorities have to be set as to what comes out of the public purse. I would definitely not call him Wilberlet.

Sympathy yes, paying for them, that's debatable and would depend on the problem. I keep thinking of the people who have been dealt a really crappy set of cards in life such as birth defects or debilitating injuries but don't whine about it. They just do the best with what they are dealt and it is often far more than most "perfect" people.

del

No, because the real problem isn't their tits.

I also disagree with our hate laws. Either we believe in free speech or we don't. Are we a mature country or one that can be mindlessly led around any homicidal loony who can make a good speech? I think we are the former but we don't seem to have the national self confidence to put it to the test. Case in point, Columbia university invited Ahmadinejad to speak even though he and what he stands for is detested by Americans and they told him so to his face. Canadians to I would hope. In Canada his views would be regarded as hate mongering and illegal but Americans take the First Amendment seriously because free speech means having to listen to things you don't like.

We subsidize school for all Canadians and teach the courses they need, not just the ones which have your approval. Part of the cost of doing business in a country which does not have a birthrate high enough to maintain its society. We need the kids more than anyone else. What his wife is doing is their business, just as what your wife (should you have one) does is your business. So what, we need babies in this country, the fewer we have, the more young people we will have to import to maintain a productive society. Actually, it is just stupid. If an immigrant can afford to own and operate a vehicle he is obviously gainfully employed and paying the same taxes as everyone else. We educate all our population, native born or immigrant. It is essential to maintaining a free and prosperous society. I hope you are not suggesting that the children of native born Canadians should receive a state paid education but the children of immigrants should not. ESL is part of the cost of not having enough children born in Canada. Those ESL kids are the future taxpayers of Canada, I wonder if they will have a different attitude toward it than you.

I respectfully submit that someone who is in need of continual therapy due to a lack of self esteem because their tits aren't big enough is not someone I would want to trust with large and lethal weapons.

Language is a barrier to getting good jobs when people come here but I don't know why you would think a person with enough initiative to get a professional degree in a third world country would come to Canada and work as a cab driver because he doesn't have enough initiative to upgrade his language skills. You accuse them of bankrupting our social programs because they don't want to work or aren't willing to do what it takes to get decent jobs. Sure sounds like calling someone a bum to me.

I'm retired, therefore I am a deadbeat by that standard, even though I have never collected EI or welfare in my life.

Stats Can Just a few things from the report. Sure sound like a bunch of bums to me.

I agree on the moral but it will be very political. The fact is, at our present birth rate, in twenty years we will be an old society with more people dieing than being born. That's just a reality we have to deal with.

Aging boomers are going to aggravate the situation but they are not the main issue. The declining birthrate is the real problem. Even the boomers had more kids per capita than people do now. Mikedavid wanted news references. Here are a few. National Post CTV CBC

The Canadian birth rate is 1.57 per woman. The bare minimum required to renew the population is 2.1. Two to replace the parents and .1 for unforeseen mortality. Lets round if off to 1.5 per couple. If every two couples average 3 children in their lifetimes, that is a drop of 25% per generation. Who needs a newspaper article to figure that out.

We need immigration because too many of us chose not to renew our population. The the reasons may vary and be subject to debate but the numbers are not very complicated. Any post WW1 decline was due to a large portion of the male population who would have normaly been raising families, ending up being buried in France, not because of changed attitudes towards having children.

Except that with a birth rate of 1.57 children per woman, Canadians will become extinct within 5 generations without immigration.

That's because they are not vaccines for cancer. What's your point?

All this talk of women, the ultimate consequences for our society will be the same for men. Someone will have to produce the children who will grow up to maintain the society that present and future generations will need to survive when they are no longer in the workforce. They will either have to come from within the country or be imported from elsewhere.