RB

With colonization came labor exploitation, the feeling of being oppress, development of new markets, raw material etc. control With globalization comes major players with economic powers and a direction of protecting corporations internationally to eliminate competition, and take advantage also of cheap labor etc. How are colonization and globalization similar and different? I mean if colonization was a success in terms of exploitation to create wealth and we think globalization is similar, shouldn't the Canadian economy get prep-up and become more involve global activities - we are losing out

Two cheers for Democracy: One cheers because it admits variety and two cheers because it permits criticism. Two cheers is “quite enough: there is no occasion to give three.” The third Forster reserved for the Republic of Love. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? Lincoln What is Liberalism? I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means—except by getting off his back. Tolstory What is the United Nations The United Nations cannot do anything, and never could; it is not an animate entity or agent. It is a place, a stage, a forum and a shrine . . . a place to which powerful people can repair when they are fearful about the course on which their own rhetoric seems to be propelling them. O’Brian

I don't think this will happen - there is a section in the employment equity Guideline 8 that covers ONLY Aboriginals - Banks would exist under the federal regulations But somehow I get the feeling that employers are just resentful of employment equity and hence the display of "emotions" like the usage forcing companies to do the numbers. You know emotions and business don't jive well. Proper administration and implementation and close monitoring with readjustment is critical. All the examples given I would argue that even if Employment Equity is compliance that employers do need to see it just a basic core obligations but more about enhancing their business. If you say to me that you are hiring visible minority because you need to meet quotas I would say that firstly you are not integrating your labor requirements into your business goals and objectives. One of the goals of employment equity is to have companies access a diversify group of people that exist in the marketplace. And that if word of mouth is the only method of recruitment use, that there are other methods to try such as: organisations, churches, career fairs, become a community partner so that you learn to access other talents - be creative Life is much easier if there is a "buy-in" and you understand the need for employment equity to exist OK the least we can agree is that there is discrepancies in the identifiable groups. They are unemployed in large numbers. One other alternative was to encourage them into entrepreneurship Can you suggest other alternatives?

August1991 Posted: Jan 9 2005, 01:43 AM I have not seen minimum wage shift along with inflation, and that in fact I would say to those of you who think employers are hurting, the true is that whilst manufacturing would have a wage increase, that we can assessed that minimum wage had fallen 50%. So this minimum wage could hardly be the major contributing factor to high unemployment or worsen employers’ position. Furthermore, only 6% of all jobs in Canada were paid out at or below minimum wages I have seen that companies will try to reconfigure strategies for the long term in order to save on labor cost (so there is long term implication of trade-offs) but importantly that if we did indeed raise minimum wages the total increase in wages pay out is well an increase in income overall And if there was a co-relation of low wages and being poor contrary to the economic theory, that in Canada min. wage is accrued to only 30% of the poorest.

Wage distribution becomes stable over time If your argument was in favor of losing min. wage, welcome, high wages reduces exits from companies and there is a link to voices and talks of unions Sure they do. They understand about the in/elasticity of the labor demand for low wage industries and we are mostly a service industry. They understand with monopolising companies with huge profits or even competitive industries that increases in min. wages, it would just simply get absorbed Shannon and Beach, did a study that suggested increase in min. wage would only lower poverty minimally but a redistribution of creative programs targeting the working poor is a solution

I am hardly the one to support forcing employers to hire someone who is not qualifying for the job. Sorry but I understand employers are committed to their bottom line, initial hiring and learning curve is factored in as cost and expenses and liability. There was a study/experiment done with several actors each given the same qualifications, similar work history etc., and send off for interviews, the only difference between them is sex, and color. I am sure you would not be surprise to learn that "whites" and "males" were offer opportunities 80% of the time. While offers were made to visible minority 20%, was a couple of sales opportunity that to be put in the calculation, offers were made to the visible minority and whites on pare of which the companies took just about any one because it is whole commission Companies have their own practices on hiring, and whether we try to eliminate contamination and try to safe guard good practices the reflection in the workplace shows how subjective we are - unless there is a law for company's to follow, company's do not have some code of ethics that universally bound them You mentioned about taxes and I will add on there are other professions also difficult to access for some reason and not attracting the same groups of people - so employment is not the only source of the discrepancies we seeing With regards supporting evidence, we look at the gaps in employment statistics and other statistics and follow the trend, obviously employment have a lot to do with people livelyhood, their sphere of control, social issues, living conditions etc. Secondly, because the act has been remove, the question is where the complaints are lounge, so look at the back logs of Human Rights complains, and companies being sue Thirdly, when social programs are implement with identify gaps we monitor and follow the results Fourthly, the environment is constanly changing and reshaping, encouragement into reseach will give insights The government is a good example of shifting minds but evidently someone recognised that a problem existed Argus, I am afraid I don't think you nor I will agree on this matter of employment equity and hence being reinstated, as my notion of what is descrimination is totally whack from yours

I am sure if those were the words used or mere suggestiveness we could have kept the act up I can give you the lines that were used to recind the act: 1) The Job Quotas Repeal Act 2) Designed by well meaning people to encourage integration, employment equity works against it encouraging Canadians to huddle together in groups and feed the unhealthy obsession with race and gender that has seized the Canadian society 3) Call for new legislature: "Equal opportunity Plan" 4)Employment equity is reverse discrimination ...and hiring quotas (those you know) 5)Why Merit matters 6) No way to run a railroad (reference to foreign engineers) 7) Real Employment Equity 8) Employment ...challenges the fundamental tenets of ...individual rights and equal opportunity 9) Equal opportunity is presumed to exist 10) Equity programs are threats to liberal society 11)Any legislature that targets groups leads to victim-focus identities, conflict and division 12)The only qualified meritorious individual for jobs or promotions are ? 13) Discrimination exist only in isolated instances 14) calls for debate 15)How are Canadians going to fight these laws? mmm as people have lost their voices 16) Conservatives usage of "high principle" 17) "Ferret out" the act 18) Employers have been given the word, explicitly or otherwise I mean I could go on with this for a bit .... but I am going to call it a night for now

Thanks for clearing the semantics about equity and employment equity Maybe I had better rewrite it in proper formatting so that I understand fully: INTERPRETATION: Definition: 1) Employment Equity is not referred to the short title equity 2) Equity means equality so not a proper usage to address employment 3) Employment Equity is about equal results and has its roots in NDP Finding solution to address the above: Short Title: I will hencefore use only "the act" gladly, because of less fingering with these non-responsive tangibles Now I will like to clarify the act and its intention. I interpret it to read that no person should be denied a job for reason unrelated to their ability. Here are the identify groups: 1) Women 2) Visable Minority 3) Aboriginal 4) People with Disablity I keep saying this, that the equity program does not put pressure and undue hardship on companies to accommodate anyone. It would take as much as 3 years for some companies to reach a level of perhaps 60%. And at least 5years to have some semblance of the demographics. We understand employment equity was not a practice prior, but we would expect that there is commitment to practice fair recruitment, it means re-evaluating some practices and to outreach into communities where jobs can be posted and the groups will have access. Look at it this way, say new recruits are fed from only from a university campus, and I did not mention Intel, guess who shows up in the workplace. Other people who have the necessary qualification and would like to work a particular company is filtered out. On a macro level the four groups mentioned above is always filtered out for whatever reason, and unless something is done to correct this, it would continue to be a perpetuating vicious cycle. This is the same argument used to repel the act. Arguments about quotas and etc. But the real reason why those arguments usually show up is because some people "whites" need reassurance that: 1) they are not treated unfairly, and 2) that they are not on the receiving end of discriminatory practices, 3) they are hardly the ones needing support groups and to get together for the same 4) they follow tradition and are not recipients to government programs 5) they remain privileged 6) an attempt to change status quo is a threat to this nation I think I got it right, so what is ideal is to take the marginalized group and marginalized them further

Thats so ironic and ludicrous Ok after all this discussion I wanted to ask besides following the media which plays on the women's sensibilities - are women really thinking they are doing all of this to become more appealing to the male eye I mean, am I the only one thinking, gone are the days where women needed to get a wealthy husband. And that women do not need to increase their "market value" by being preoccupied with their self-image, their appearance, and surgery. I mean where is the moral divide in all of these “doll-up” scenarios that leads to obsession, unhappiness, broken relationships etc. Perhaps we did not pre-warn the audience of Janet Jackson exposure, no air-brush but it is cosmetic but still the outcry

I want to say to you that the “language” of “the act” was never radicalized. It is people’s responses such as yours that put meaning to the legislature and seek to promote radicalization. So I will give you an example: so you would like to leave the marketplace and hiring practices alone. Not a problem, it is fair. But there is a dismal gap of commitment to look at other people’s experiences, their representation in companies and promotions within the companies. I will help you sort out in summary what you are saying that companies owe nothing to society, and it is only fair that we, conservative continue with our collective memories of how institutions should operate: we seek to carry forward with values, principles and traditions regardless of what is changing around us. (Did I get that right?) The only reason why equity is seemed as adverse to the “white” group is because it seem to discriminate against its members. I don’t have a percentage of unemployed whites, we don’t track this statistics, but I would guess that as much as 90-100% of them wanting to work has a job compare it to the designated equity group who takes menial jobs for survival, are under-represented, and under-employed, and unemployed, what maybe > 40% Yet here you are telling me that there is race discrimination and the only race you are actually referring to is “white” I won't worry about getting any equity program dissolve so fast - there is indication that a whole lot a folks that are unemployed and are having mighty time on hand to decide on strategies are seeking to employ the conservatives to work on their behalf

.The NDP platform is hinge around equality of the races, religion etc. so it is a "big deal" to take up these important issues. No one is forcing companies to discriminate, equity would ensure that you look at all candidates suited for an opportunity and you decide on a best fit without biasness. If companies are fair in the employment practices the reflection of the demographics would exist inside the workplace and I would not be having this discussion. Furthermore, I would also submit that a separate Statue also be created for foreign trained professionals - there is something called justice and fairness and it not reflected in the recruitment of overseas professionals working in Canada, no system in place for such appeals as why? and are lost into the taxi driving and factory work will return to continue later ....

I fail to see that women with wrinkle signifies end of vitality and has nothing to offer. You are conforming a woman with wrinkles is usually taken to mean the interchangeable “wife”, "the mother", “grandmother”, “bag lady” that you wish to sever relation. If anything there is more power and freedom to women, firstly there is the end of the “curse”, and women are reported to feel very much liberated and very sexual, attractive and more feeling good about themselves. And they do not need to be bombarded by images to distraction to tell them this. I mean these are mature ladies, well they do have money to make a difference despite the commercials showing and targeting youthful look. I would argue that we should see a whole lot more older women popping up on the television The media has always taboo women self-image, and keeps lowering women’s self-worth, sense of self, and seek overwhelmed the women and strongly encouraged to avoid any physical signs connected with aging – such feign affections for women from the media. Women do not have to surrender to youth at all, nor should they be encouraged to distress themselves with dark imagination, we have the compliments of men living with us daily for this already

When the NDP was in goverment they promised Employment Equity, and was introduced into the legislature and became a law and emplyoyers had to comply to identifying and eliminating employment barriers in the workplace and also instituting positive policies and practices so that groups of people are treated fairly The Conservative government under Harris recinded Employment Equity in Ontario. Ontario currently have 6 employment statutes: employment standards act, Ontario Labor Relations act, Workplace safety and insurace act, Occupational Health and safety act, Human rights code, and Pay equity act (clarifying, this one requires employers to be of a certain size to implement), but statistics show that descrimination in employment practices is a problem The only compliance for Employment Equity now is Federal Agencies and Federal contractors with 100 or more employees in Canada First, what are your thoughts on re-introducing a statute in all of Ontario? Second, do you think a private member bill would do keeping in mind that these are rarely passed I mean a liberal government in power now, they would buy in to public pressure

well they also came up with information why women should not use their brains - it would interfere with the baby making I guess I have not seen men so pronounced in the media as the exploited women, the men in the media commercials are represent only with razors and underwear and hair loss I forgot that one I like the idea that the real men end up in bronze and put in the marketplace where women indifferently gaze upon them - well exception because contemporary life is in pursuit of the pink culture, I mean the gays are overwhelmingly representing all the men nowadays and having taken up air and space time, so guys there is a newer formulae available and you need to be updated good, I'll also put a stamp on this one myself - I say this is the ultimate bestest experience that can happen between the sexes, and it does not work ...

Firstly, I don't expect men to confer with this idea of being a major contributor of standards for women. We already establish this the minute women were coined passive, whatever. Kundera, in Immorality says "Woman is the future of man. That means that the world which was once formed in man's image will now be transformed to the image of woman." But also men have more to lose than not. Now society can change an attitude, we have seen, for example little boys are taught to respect women at an early age instead of the encouragement of unleashing the beast within. I am sure if there was a some progressive outcry by women to stop this imagery of women, and to force the idea we are not represented as a true self, that there can be a societal change but also watch the collapse of industries and economies. Women, well, we are working for them for change their psyche about themselves, and to accept who and what they are, and its slower than anticipated But what fashion has done to women is to take what is the improbable ideal of women and offer a cheap solution to the same women to try for a great look. I guess because there is a choice are given, women are grateful for the chance to put these in their lives. - glamour - escapism - mirror images of what we wish we were - pick a fashion brand - deal with my aesthetic attractiveness - chose wisely my lifestyle But these are all false creations and false expectations on the part of women that is handed to society. It is at this junction that society wants to hand it fully to all women. But, I mean we never hear about these so call models positive image having some group session to be a “role model” that’s a good one, but what they usually say in the ads is that look, you are never good the way you are, and you need to change, let me see that is targeting 99.7% of women because only 0.3 percent are in shape...phew what a market conclusion, maybe women are connected to style and this is alright, more that what they live and experience in real life I say men dictate the fashion styles and images women present because they are the controllers of the means of these media, it is owned by males and hence information is projected though the shifty male lenses. Heck from the beginning they created beauty, women for men themselves. So I don't pretend to lay the blame squarely on men because of their twisted view, women are seen as an object – sex object, afterall that’s what the advertisement is selling for example now: - the models used for calvin kline usually show young women in defeating roles sexual subordination, while it seeks to enhance the male bulges where-ever they are found. Secondly the ads set women up agaist each other for sexual prowldressness (new word from me) Men know about women and feed on women's insecurities, and guess what women are played into the commercialism of themselves. Men link youth to consumption of gym products, diet, clothes, aging cream etc. Look, we ladies, we want to believe in our men, and they show how to stay young and stay with them but everything we try we are failing 95% of the time So there must be some end to this commercialism of image because it slows women down in their progress to make men happy and for women to have equality I have a suggestion, that for one universal day of the year, that all the women of the world get rid of bras, panties, bathing suits, mirror images, glamour, fashion brand, aesthetics etc that reminds us of commercialism and that for this one day that all the women demand a standard and here is what you get: 1) a uniform or 2) a nude Take you pick L( . Y . )k here now, Is it too much to ask that women be spared the daily struggle for superhuman beauty in order to offer it to the caresses of a subhumanly ugly mate? The Female Eunuch, “Loathing and Disgust”

yes yes I agree From my perspective in prior times women duties were to take care of the home and look darn pretty. And the men were apparently hardworking people who brought in the paycheck – no talk about economic parity, nor appearance. Well, even now the grandfathers do not care much about appearance. Nowadays, women have their own earning power and are free to consider other choices besides the finances the man provide which is why I object to trying to put some standard on beauty – women do not need this beautifying ideal anymore - they need to be themselves. I mean if women are to surpass men in what is considered beautiful, without the men formulae, I think we are doing much better. Here is the equation as it evolves Dependant pretty women=hard working men=men with no interest on appearance Hardworking women=choice in men=men change in appearance So the fact is women should be applauded, because look at a change culture for men, and it shows movement of influence of not caring about their appearance to - No more hair (as in shaving legs, chest, back, etc.) - Preening - Earnings - More muscles - Looking sexier - Change in attire - Change in attitude - Change in appearance - More magazines for the sorts - Clean cut folks - And they are not attending universities in equal numbers as the women so not getting wiser But also they are exhibiting and flaunting their bodies I am beginning to wonder if women can secure enough power over men, mind you the males are very fixated on the females already, and they don't want to attend school that indeed there is a reversal of this image programming and we end up with Hardworking pretty women = ?? Hardworking pretty men you think

More grab news on those desparate housewives - I admit I never saw an episode yet, but saw ratings constantly in the news - and the images of the ladies, uh well more stereotyping and the "L( . ) ( . )K" sought after But here is some dizzying information on women and their pressures Miss America contest (average) statistics 1954 – height 5’8”-132pounds 1980 – height 5’8”-117pounds 1991 – height 5’8”-117pounds – winners were always thinner and below 117 pounds Playboy competes with these statistics above, these are the ideals that men are seeking? Real statistics for an average North American woman Height 5’3” – 144 pounds Look it , women seen and portrayed on TV and in the media such as newspaper, magazines, billboards, movies etc are weighting 23% less body weight than an average woman, and now the avg. regular women are internalized to keep up with these appearances, shows like desperate housewives only promote women to their own demise. Here is a survey of 33,000 college students who should, well, rely on intelligence rather than appearance to succeed in life. Why are these women standardizing themselves, and having such poor perception of their body image? 75% think they are fat 96% want to lose weight 47% diet occasionally 37% diet all the time 95% failure rate of dieting I am of the believe women are judge at this intersection by the standards we see in the media - she dresses or undress - dress up or dress down - walks or wiggle - wear make-up or not - coifs or color - thin or fat - gain weight or lose weight - flat breast or large busted - buttocks flat or firm - fascination about appearance or obsession - have cosmetic surgery, liposuction, or breast implants or shun it - right or wrong - wrong or lie - sample or appraise - appearance or intelligence - indifferent to problem or choice No doubt, there is pressure from the media for women to look a certain way, whatever lies women tell or conveyed or "poker face" they show to others. They are silently accepting standards and scrutinizing themselves privately. And usually they do not like what they see. Anxiety is created among women, especially with older women and teens about the way they should see themselves. The media plays the pivotal role in pressuring the creation of this fad to the detriment of women. So Bill Clinton is sexy? I thought charismatic yes, well he put women’s issues on his agenda (no pun intended) such as caring, but mostly from my view he is seemingly apologetic for past patriarchal behavior – hence this infatuation of women to Bill. I believe men are not as much pressured to look a certain way as women, men usually have only 5 pounds they are are always trying to lose. Men who have streaks of grey are indicative of being distinguished and other notable characteristics perhaps accumulated wealth, the same view of steaks of grey is not true of women. The we in context was: society, then the media, then men, then women In what context is kemosabe used?

Why are we imposing standards on women to look a certain way? Women are internalise to think, thin = good figure. With a good figure comes greater display of skin, which reads, sexy. But most of women we see and whom we know are naturally more mature and larger than the models shown on TV or other media. I mean the only big winners are the cosmetic and diet industry (well, car too), whose un-surmountable profits just keep soaring because of the media portrayal of THE CERTAIN look a woman should aspire for to become acceptable, be a beauty and therefore desirable. What’s wrong with being messy, not trying to fit into some smaller size clothes, being sweaty, no make-up, cheap bras, forgo the shaving of the legs for one day without worrying, no botox, keeping fit and being in good health etc. Why women are thinking they need adjustment to look a particular way?

Hi everyone I have a copy of Uncle Mike's Edenbridge, Memoirs of a Jewish Pioneer Farmer that I am currently reading. It draws on the good heart of every man who walk the life of hardship, the kindness of the people shown at every corner to help others become good, productive and dignify people Has anyone ever visited the colony area, and if you have other stories, please share your experience

It’s a shame that in speaking out you also have to rescue the female. Because these arguments can go on and on about what is moral and what is law, I think our obligations only rest on what we owe to actual persons not possible, potential, likely, hopeful persons In law when we weight the actions and decide on outcomes, a common sense bargain (as in cost benefits) decision emerges, here is a simple example: so people against abortion feel some kind of dissatisfaction. These attitudes are not of kind or moral weight that might outweight substantially the moral rights of the person having the abortion and hence this repugnance that the anti-abortion people feel is not recognised and not enforce in the CC. In short, what I meant is that women operate within their rights and will continue to conduct their lives as the see fit. They have their freedom of choice and putting restrictions on their freedoms shows invasion of their rights. Condoms have been tried to separate procreation from sex, but they are not foolproof. Mind you, Bill Clinton tried to separate fellatio from sex. He tried to take issue with what 'sex' was defined as, and not even 'a wad of bills' could make Monica swallow that story! About the separation of procreation and sex, it is my attempt to shift the lens and widen what is the definition of sex?. Fellatio is a good choice, and I am not trying to create new and alternative stuff, it is all there already. I just wonder how we can create some balance for women to still have their pleasures, and their protection, and their autonomy. contraception: I like China’s motto “prevention first, birth control first”. China must have capitalise on Malthus theory with regards to population control policy, but what a practice though, maybe we would rather adopt China’s ways eh Agreed, contraception is safer and more convenient than abortion. Interesting, there is a new pill being tested for men to share with the contraception methods testosterone undecanoate (TU) a reversible hormone-based male contraceptive similar to what's been available to women, as only limited number of males are using vacsectomy. Mind you I am not implying that abortion is used as contraception but is a major essential for family plan – just accept it folks. Ok, now, I also believe that when a man usually opposes the women’s choice to abortion it is because he generally feels it’s a blacken mark, and he comes face to face with his sexual degradation. Why women disapprove of abortion is mostly brainwashing by men, but these women also exist in minority. My apologies are extended here, but clearly also women owes society nothing.

Maybe you would really like to bring back the days of ol' when women were told they should not go to school, as it would interfere with their production of normal babies It took a long time for women to move forward and legislate control of their bodies, and to have choices I believe with open dialogue much more can be accomplish in discussions of how to separate procreation from sex I truly wish there were more discussions on how to explore sexuality freely with all its potentials and pleasures rather than the other route of hammering away and trying to censor women and wanting to take away their rights.

Throughout history we have seen changes for the inclusion of others. And I believe that the gays are one of those current struggles that required attention and needs to be included. The feminist movement is an example of “rights” for inclusion. While our charter clearly seeks to protect the rights of individuals – (these are liberal values). I am not seeing how it works to protect every man especially those wanting a relation with another man. And as far as I am concern marriage is a right for all of us: man:woman, man:man. I mean the principals we charish are so embedded in our values that we even allow every person to pursue their own interest. And we went about to set up the charter to give the same opportunity to all people unequivocally, like same rights and privileges without compromise. And the expected outcomes we all agree ... must be fair. The slant that I take here, stems from a fact that each person must be able to make their way successfully into this society based on the conditions we provide them. So I am going to support gay marriage. I wanted to parallel what is happening with the gays and the path women took for inclusion. (well the traditional marriage definition was about men and women) and I like talking about women. So in terms of early freedom for women it was about rights over their body. Hence legislation, I won’t speak of coverture. The idea of legislature was a legal protection for women. Funny thing about regulation is that the government tries its bestest to impose what they define as good morality and pronounce it as “right”. So enters, religious and moralist people. It is my believe that folks who generally speak out and oppose gays and the gay ways are mostly religious folks or pretentious moralist. And how ironic, because it is the sad moralist who cast their eyes aside for the very people who show up for marriage license whether it be a rapist or a murder regardless. These folks are not denied a right get marry. What I meant is that even people with no alignment to god, and no good moral values are still entitled to a right to get married - yes Anyway, about the woman and marriage and an angle the gays can favourable work with. Women had to reconstruct marriage, - from “ownership”, (that women were men possession) - from prostitution, (mercantile marriage market rendered marriage equal as prostitution) - from slavery, (unpaid household chores, and sexual slave) - from free union, - from an ideal, to regulation and have won some legal battles such as the right to retain their wages, and capital etc. rather than giving it all over to men. But good for women, now they are inspired for the ideal of marriage, to promote equality and a relationship to the highest "morality". What I wanted to draw out is that in terms of equality, there is no struggle for power between 2 men, nor the prostitution, or slavery etc. Now here we are playing semantics on how to discriminate with “marriage”. So, we are at some standstill and asking pointed questions what to do with a group of people, like recognise them, compromise, or not recognise. And here we are also taking the same right given to us under the charter and also violating the same right we mean to protect with those very initial survey questions. Ok since I brought up the semantics of marriage. First lets talk about the tradition of marriage for population growth, or to fused 2 people together where they become one (i.e. the man usually emerge as one . Anyway, I wanted to ask how about the sterile people who will never have children or those couple whom genuinely fess-up and declare they do not want children. Should we still allow them to marry? So I wonder why we should discrimination against 2 men who actually decided they do not want to have children. Well, also why can't men claim some discrimination in terms of not having rights over their bodies. We keep assuming that all men are a willing participant in procreation. Now should the gay relax on this a hysterical outcry of unfairness? Ok well that's it for now, but to me this marriage is more like a social sanction for women. Oh man, if they did not get married it is a taboo. Marriage for a man, well they are a good catch when they eventually get married, being unmarried is never a bad thing Its all a hype and social construct and plays in the imagination But, what I can say is not give a right of marriage to all people violates their liberal principles, their freedom of expression and goes against our charter. In that sense the word marriage becomes useless and affirms some artificial social construct for everyone

I noticed that too, and was also surprised. I do believe Greg is in the middle of his 'Master's Thesis' and does not have the time to moderate 'at will', only intermittently. c’mon folks, lighten up. I thought I had explained the outburst sufficiently, and that the obscenities issue is closed. Well, I readily admit obscenities are errors in judgement, and are not fit for this forum. Unless, of course, you are rather inspired and impassioned and imitating Richler. Conveniently for language, I am prone to contemporary literary. But, I must confess I don’t know anyone on the board, and that I don’t know our anonymous Argus and vice-versa. And as such I don't believe anyone has a right to mock or mar, nor demean others. I mean the little bits of insights of truths is not the only necessary ingredient to prejudge and shape a person "write" before our eyes. So its not like Argus will redeem any self-importance, social status or otherwise even if he is now bargaining for some consolations and perhaps succeeds. On pondering this I can further maintain, that my expression of outburst deserves no protection so I am a bit weary of all of this nonsense. I digress. I am afraid I am so stack with profanity, sufficiently enough that it makes even me *blush*, and so I thought I had better take the opportunity of the cool weather to chill. So good riddance to me – and a safe and happy holidays to you folks

Statistics identify the huge discrepencies found in ethnic groups when compared with the dominant group and should be taken seriously. I mean I have the a report somewhere where employment agencies confess that 80% of the time they would not send an "other" person for a job i read a story the other day about a young black canadian, born in canada, but felt he does not belong. people always ask where he is from? and expresses disbelief when he replies canada. the next usual question is where are the parents from? Kai is his name and he relates more to the american culture because he feels included. in canada you have to be white to belong. he says Sir John McDonald first prime minister was not born in canada, but yet he belong. black apparently are represented by some culture, he mentioned shaggy, is shaggy american? it does not feel good to regale these experiences, but it is a start to understanding the way "others" perceive themselves and the way we see them I had a Pakistani doctor say to me, he has been practising for 20 years. How did he become a doctor? well in the 1970's apparently, there were a shortage of doctors in Pakistan, so the government encouraged folks into the profession with free scholarships. study for 3 years and become a doctor. thats it. I was horrified. the immigrating engineers - I agree, depending where the experience is from, it does not translate into the canadian labor market no doubt - I agree that some of the education, and profession do not qualify to practice on par what the person did prior thats why the bridging programs now exist my issue is that the jobs the immigrants do land are general labor and factory work, for example say the new arrival engineer could have been "fit" into a tool and die operator or such perhaps a trades person or a technician but no opportunity is given what happen to the idea that people can work to improve themselves, their education, skills etc. They are just not given an opportunity to move beyond certain levels. Sturm did a piece on second generation employment discrimination in the columbia law review. racial inequality exist and the origin is far more complex and elusive than what you say. ok gone are "blacks need not apply" Irish need not apply. 1st generation have to deal with discriminatory exclusion and harassment - with patterns of biasness. 2nd generations deal with practices and patterns of intersections in the workplace and over time are excluded. we look at the aggregate statistics because race treatment is difficult to trace to actors direct to intentional I'll give you some information. 1st generations immigrants usually rely on the court system to enforce across the board rules. what these folks don't know is that we are vague and ambiguous in the rules and therefore it undermindes compliance. So it does not and will not solve a generation of immigrant problems The education system about the Caribbean kids whose language is English falling being in graduating, is discussed somewhere in the forum

I never heard about aboriginals not complying with breaks etc. by law they are required 2 fifteen minutes break, and 1/2 hour for lunch just as everyone, attendance time is set by the employers, rules are rules - so I am non forgiving when it comes to puntuality, performance What I know is i just did a report on 2 leading agri. companies existing in geographical areas representing Aboriginals externally, whilst they are hiring in the numbers there are no representation of the said group. Furthermore, in the thousand of employees existing the 2 aboriginals that they had hired previously exited the workforce - I don't know what kinds of conclusion you draw. I what I see is a working environment insensitive, and not very receptive aboriginals. oops, and one of those companies is being audited by Human Rights Commission