RB

I can sympathise with your circumstances. It was not so long ago I also encountered what is financial deprivation as a single mother. Your situation is complicated with health and happiness and finances. I can relate that it is during these times you come face to face with reality check. And when I check the statistics then, it told me 70% of all single mothers were in financial dire straits, so no good news. I meant all these mothers were probably helpless and seemingly hopeless in worrying about being poor, not providing basic necessaries for the family, distressed about the rent, or having no food at home. The same regaling of desperate outreach for some assistance. It was while I was standing in front of the “Our Lady of Fatima”, a Catholic Church that I met myself, my hopes, my fears and dreams. Now, I am not religious by any means. Least I entered the church my gains would be the immersion of good grace, some good sense and more appreciation for some good architecture. I mean the church must have some probity, and enthusiasm, some good learnt people who are devoted and would turn no person away. So, I entered and was right. They were generous and believed in the very little I said. It is a difficult thing to forgo a last resort of pride. Nope, no one tried to convert me, and yes I am still not religious. No I also have no misgivings. Sometimes, the alternatives are there, only you have to see it and strive towards it with encouragement from you. So, of course, I have moved on, only I usually nowadays decide on my own direction. Come the New Year I will decide whether I will occupy THE top position of a consulting engineering firm while they await an answer, and plus also I do operate my own business among other things so I don’t foresee being in dire straits. And yes I do send my yearly gratuities still to the church. The question I ask can you take your burden of weight and press it upon the shoulders of the government and hold them responsible for your escape route. They are very vigilant in the operation some pitiless laws, and usually extend an apology saying, “I am not here at all” you know It never really occurred to me to access the government system, I think the government takes too much care that the people to not cheat them. But, perhaps hopefully the day will come, when the government do not take care that they do not cheat the people. In the meantime the church might be the kind of “knot of friends” you need while also being the place of solace.

Well i recently had a look of the teen’s stats and glad to say they are not the ones having abortions, i mean it is very much lower than previously, and also they are not having children. it might just mean that they are more informed about contraception and actually use the same as i didn't believe the practice of abstinence is likely in such a liberal society. Significant though an increase on abortion in the 20 - 29 year old - and i don't believe it has much to do with number of sexual partners but a link to whether it is affordable to have the children now or to postpone it

i think we have exhausted this topic previously, but of course i believe in a women's right to choose and to choose well and we have in canada elizabeth bagslaw to thank - canada's first medical woman doctor to help with our choices

the effect of becoming a parent is more profound on the women than the men. look women exclusive capacity to procreate, in context, really mean they also exclusively must care for the kids. what it also means is that women cannot synchronise paid work with parenthood like the father, so guess what they did not choose to become poor. but what it also means for public policy making is a downplay, because it questions women contribution and commitment to employment and then downplays the same with women' lack of commitment and and hence figures the importance of quality public childcare. it is not a priority this is why i am sincere in my advocacy for liberation of women for economic powers. women out of economic necessity must build a career first and then until there are more of those slowly changes that we wish such as: daycare, struggle to synchronise being a mother with a decent living well i am glad to report that more women are choosing to have children in their 30's, after they have gone to college and secure some career compare to the 70's if the government have seen the shift of less teenage pregnancies, and less women in their 20's having kids, and can figure day-care might help revitalise those number of new born - all glory to them a dilemma for me is anything structural or policy base to assist women with paid work and family only confers to the presupposition that children are women work - yes we would like the daycare, but .. ok maybe now that i think about this, i would like to see a public policy and a structural change that allow men to share work equally

Both my neighbour and I believe in increasing production because we recognise that these chickens are all we have So I sell the eggs and offer my 2 fowls for rent for the incubation period. My neighbour gets all the raw material to get started. This also means my neighbour takes care of the 2 fowls for 21 days. Means feeding the fowls etc. and making sure they are kept healthy, but just in case of negligence I also draw up a contract and put a lean against his house … just in case … he is only my neighbour – so we both agree Now for me, life is glorious, see what I mean no chicks around, I actually get to concentrate. In the meantime I also help him get set-up to sell the chicks when he is ready In return I get a cut of the revenues And guess what (yes I decided and bought them chicks myself at wholesale price) See how good I was I give everything to my neighbour, and when he is fed up and ready to sell I WAS there to help him out And you wondered how I do well

thanks for that article maplesyrup, i have archived it for my own use. anyway, it is a very bold agenda - i wondered how committed they would be in making sure there is a follow though until recently i have never met a "designated" first nation person, but i am happy to disclosed that i am taking a course currently where the professor is of native indian status of course she had her agenda similar to the other professors, so i have been updated and bombarded with information of first nations recently - i didn't mind because it really shed some light and experiences of the extinct faces you never see in the media, textbooks, or even public places i mean they are on the reserves still - the forgotten folks she tells of the difficulties encountered on her quest for PhD - having limited access and resources are major barriers, she is the only member of her family, and indian circles to enter into university thus far and she didn't get started until in her thirties - she still has loans outstanding >60k these are folks who have been screwed more than twice -so this good news is something positive your article will make for an interesting discussion

yes also when you factor out taxes i fear the ungodly rate of take home maybe 9/hr if we ask the prime minster how much he is making, he'd say $125k/yr or did he have an increase ok my point though is the average rates for the plumber is Hourly wages ($20.49) are higher than average ($16.91) - this is consistent data and taken from EI reporting and other payroll surveys parallel this rate to a traditional profession say a dentist makes $500/hr did you see a major discrepancy, and so can you relate to an entire community who will never access a profession such a dentist there is stats avail that shows that poor people are unable to access some profession and instead of coming up with alternatives to enhance people lives we shuffle them into senarios of where they belong - the poor amongst the poor

well it is a similar construction to the Chinatowns only there is no laughter and you wonder why

I will further clarify my take on the position of trades. If you have wealth there is no way a career counsellor or whomever will push the kids into trades – they head off to university and then manage a trades company I don’t wish to discourage trades, there is a shortage of the same – what I am saying is that when you are poor, you are directed into career paths, and it questions the brainwashing and whether is this where the kids necessarily want to be and the best interest of the kid I might add that these poor kids would be probably the first person in their family to enter into a Canadian university given an opportunity There is a much broader social issue arising than just putting poor kids into trades, its a about containing an entire community into some economic class I was a bit generous with the wage range, these are the general rates for plumbers taken from job futures using NOC Hourly wages ($20.49) are higher than average ($16.91) Pumber hourly rate

I have observed in employment that when there is a fair representation of the sexes at all levels of a hierarchy, (also clarifying, this means that women and men are found at the executive level jobs) there is an upscale chain reaction that bridge considerable a gap of other disadvantaged groups. I have a bit of a problem with pushing kids into trade because they are poor. I was on a panel back in July addressing this same trades issue with teachers. The teachers would like to think trades is an easy solution for a particular depressed area in Toronto. First check and see who are predominantly the poor people in Canada, hint, I am sure that they are not of a European decent, and male.. added as an afterthought I don't have the stats on European decent single family females, even though they might be doing better than probably say a visible male miniorty they might be still poor Here is my problem if we are connecting education with wealth and give these poor kids vocational training in trades, you reduced an entire poor community to trades, and they will remain poor. Well the good news, in terms of economic gain look a max. wage about 30/hr, thats how rich they become, now they will never establish themselves outside of their trades, they will have no contingencies in place a plumber is a plumber is a plumber - this is the same idea of creation of limits that put people in their place

you meant the government is spending our lots of monies in Whistler, the deadline is 2010 for the spending spree so this is great news the high dollar does not do well for the discrepencies in trade - US is the biggest one, a high dollar discourages inventment and trading

the dollar is gaining too much momentum - it needs to fall to encourage growth

It is an ideal - equal access, consider the law school example, if you are weathy it is a breeze through - no worries about finances and opportunities to do well. If you are not wealthy, you become fixated, and stumble at different points of university even when smart - things have not changed much for the law profession - noticable more women applicants and admissions - but also they leave the profession in record numbers law school view and wealth corelation - money spent a first degree usually honors (so 4 years) - books to practice LSAT - maybe a LSAT tutor is desirable - money for LSAT - money to apply for law school - money for courses - summer articling – if you are rich family is connected ok, if you are not guess what networking becomes a bit tricky especially if you are not mainstream - 3 years at law school - 4th year find a company to do articling – the law society says there is a shortage of companies for articling students – so guess what who will find it difficult - money for exams leading up to bar - 8 months more in school - money for bar exam - after 9 years of university - looking for work - enter Bay street law firm – if you are lucky – if rich ok you have connections - total billing hours – should be around 1800, the more the better - average out 10 billing hours a day excluding fancy lunch, dinner, snoozing, smoke break, washroom – get the picture – no life - guess what if you can’t bring in new clients – who gets canned - 9 years later make partner - you started university age 20 - so maybe that is the goal in life @ age 39 can afford to take a girl out for dinner - age 40’s maybe you’d die - I should add that even when you die - you have enough wealth to keep you alive

I think that "harmful", "repulsive" and rendering "others" horrid is a construction and creation that lives in the imagination the goverment and churches are responsible for promoting their concept of what is ideal and proceed to practice the same. well also one way for compliance is to embedd practices as laws to promote the alluring - such as marriage i meant if you look at a man and women there is no difference in their outlook to life, appearance, or other - it is the preference to sexuality that is different - and the sex is tabooed, by the practising ideal and the so called deviants. in general people usually keep information about sex, & their experiences private. so understand when any candid person do eventually speak of sex and sexuality - oh the nerve but better yet talk about deviating such as gays, it does not follow mainstream practice, so see how the images are projected in the mind and what it conjures up - is it partly repulsive - well this is the construction i am talking about - it only exist in the mind

economic rigidities huh? well only recently canada started to use fishers model to capture "true" economic data, well as true as to be in sync with US worshipers status quo? who uses this, or is this some excuse to deflect those rigidities and actually implement it my thoughts though for unemployment and those who are economically inactive. it is a burden on the tax payer over what workers and employers are actually suppose to pay to continue supporting these unemployed folks. so think of setting up some "benefit culture" for the return to work 1) that to get those economically inactive working and to get those collecting EI out of the EI system, there must be an incentive to return to work and that the incentive is greater that the EI rate, so even low skilled jobs require better than 9$/hr or perhaps some add on benefit incentive look people tend to relate to potential gains 2) reduced payroll taxes, EI, CPP burden on employers for low level opportunity so encourages a demand for labor

well the rates of unemployment had better look darn good now because all those millions of jobs loss and of folks that were unemployed >2 years ago and are not collecting insurance, and didn't find work today are not counted in the US statistics Eh? in canada if you were unemployed and looking for work at least you are counted as an unemployed number

the equity programs are not meant to exclude groups - it is meant to be a solution to compensate for under-representation of 4 groups of people whose participation in the labor force shows very serious disparities the university followed the corrective steps to equalise the numbers, usually there is some short term and long term numbers set for internal hirings compare to the avail market externally i am very critical of these right winged newspaper and their rhetorical stategies. they usually reflect a discursive shift. the haris government actually use the globe and mail arguments to to rescind the ontario employment equity program. the ontario gov't cannot get rid of ontario universities equity program because it is federal contractor my argument always lies with the challenges of keeping up with the changes of the demographics, like work in polices to fit the environment. these equity program would not be an issue if employers were up to date in their hiring, training, promotion practices and handling of complaints - look @ home depot consent decree, intel, deloitte & touche and you get a sense of systemic discrimation detailed by susan sturm - columbia law review look if there is an external population of 55% say visible minority available for a particular job and 45% whites also available for the same job there should be some similar reflection of the demographics inside a company - the equity act came into effect in '96 not that long, so companies that are federally regulated or those federal contractors should somehow be in sync in terms of compliance and numbers with this equity model however they plan it - there is no hard and fast rules, and there is no demand to cause undue hardship on anyone, employers or whites, regardless, of what the newspaper says

I think the right wing folks have an ideology of anti-fairness and are hypocritical, they usually parallel their arguments by pretending to be progressive, what i meant is that they use liberal principles and liberal ideologies to promote their ideas and practices on the discrimation issue. here are the assumptions from the various post - of course you must correct me if i am wrong 1. means the folks who are qualified and promotable are white males 2. means discrimation only happens on occasions 3. means employers usually do not look at colors when making their selection 4. means equal opportunity already exist 5. means employment equity is unnecessary 6. means individual rights takes precedent in a liberal democracy over group equity programs 7.also means equity programs poses threat to a liberal democracy 6. means you exclude whites i'll do a leap of logic for the cherish liberal values, first look if you change things you theaten our individual rights, everyone needs the same point to start thats what equality is about, its what individuality is about pursuing own interest, then look at the outcome=fair. so here is the reassurance do not approve any group equity programs otherwise you will be barely hanging on liberal values and the future of democracy. did i get that Right?

oh men have the hearts also perhaps i am too kind giving them both ... but the smarts part is what is questionable men reflect their peripheral - thats a criticism their thinking is that some of the issues women are bringing up are already dealt with and irrelavant but look the human rights recieves at least 300 complaints per year 95% of it is filed by women - its a problem there is a huge pay difference between the genders - its a barrier stats show that women are at disadvantage - its chronic hardship there is no backlash here women are the ones looking for equal bargains i was thinking maybe there is a way to desensitise the male myth of being a protector of women and for once get rid of their fear, that they must have wealth, and more wealth, and power, but you see under the common law in parts of canada a wife is still a dependant of the husband .. so thats just great

The Peggy McIntosh piece is her shared experience and can be applied to the males but whoever you are the idea was to imagine for an instant that you share the experience. Some folks are very privileged, and also born into an advantageous position. It is not very often a person can step outside of themself and recognise such a privilege. Men mostly deny they have a priviledge. And I always suspect the denial is to protect themselves of hardship. women experiences are of powerlessness - they don't control the practices, the projected myths, the images, the criticism whatever that confronts them. Women and their issue are big until such a time there is some compromise of power balance

there is no disagreement here. women are very serious about whatever professions they choose to enter into, whether they are allowed in and how far is part of their powerlessness. and i would like to point that they usually have the skills, abilities, compentencies and qualification to do a good job. well i have my reservations about Belinda. but my point is that generally women are not taken seriously and will get nowhere if there is not some change in the power balance afterall the males dominate this political profession. i was thinking firstly that maybe an attitude shift is what is needed for acceptance but this is not my view any longer. so enters 2 women for the federal courts a precedent yes in many ways. a demonstration, a first public televised hearing and public review. these women are competent nevermind the newspaper alluding still to the nurturing of the system, these are symbolic words used to put women in a subservient postion. I question whether we can say that the men would nurture the policies when they are selected also if it were 2 men appointed would all this even been an issue. its more like women are coined the "monopoly of the disinterest" to serve the country. Here is Peggy McIntosh Link: http://www.utoronto.ca/acc/events/peggy1.htm "I have often noticed men's unwillingness to grant that they are overprivileged, even though they may grant that women are disadvantaged. They may say they will work to improve women's status, but they can't or won't support the idea of lessening men's. Denials that amount to taboos surround the subject of advantages that men gain from women's disadvantages. These denials protect male privilege from being fully acknowledged, lessened, or ended." Here is some observations from Peggy - Apply it yourself: Characteristics: white & male 1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time. 2. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live. 3. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me. 4. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed. 5. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented. 6. When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that people of my color made it what it is. 7. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race. 8. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege. 9. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who can cut my hair. 10. Whether I use checks, credit cards, or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability. 11. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them. 12. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals,the poverty, or the illiteracy of my race. 13. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial. 14. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race. 15. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group. 16. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion. 17. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider. 18. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to "the person in charge," I will be facing a person of my race. 19. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race. 20. I can easily buy posters, postcards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys, and children's magazines featuring people of my race. 21. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, out numbered, unheard, held at a distance, or feared. 22. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having coworkers on the job suspect that I got it because of race. 23. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen. 24. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me. 25. If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it has racial overtones. 26. I can choose blemish cover or bandages in flesh color and have them more or less match my skin. These are other observations 1. where are you from, no exactly where you are from 2. how do you say your name 3. you do not look Canadian 4. i was reading an article where the Bay Street folks were interviewing some law students from York U and then mentioning professions – the top lawyer recruiter (male of course) jokes that prostitutes work better hours than lawyers – 2 females were present. No problem? the point is he assumes those women were heterosexuality and it probably never occur to him that the females might be lesbians 5. eyebrow raised..you are Indian, I would not have known – Indians apparently are suppose to be homogenous like whites 6. whites are not the ones subjected to loud slow replies as if the receiving person were deaf and also dumb – also the sheer arrogance – repeat - did you get that, this happens even when English is the only language the others understand 7. this is from a man viewpoint – he expresses he feels sorry for the man that stands in a woman’s way. we hear this a lot. naturally it does not occur to him that the woman may “stand in the way” of the man – this is inconceivable

I am doing a bit of writing in regards to power, and representation of women from of course a feminist perspective on professions and won’t mind some engaging discussion from any viewpoint - First I was looking at an article from The Honourable Sharon Carstairs who wrote “Politics: Is it a woman’s game” She ran for leadership of the Liberal Party in Manitoba. It tells how the media criticise and ridicule her voice (minnie mouse, machine gun delivery). At first she alloted the voice nuiances to the shape of her mouth, she is a “big girl”, well how convenient because the media also talk about her bigness, her clothes and size. Women get this kind of scrutiny a lot in politics, and interesting no one ever mentions who or what the men are wearing, so is it to do with gender? I put it down to this that the women are not taken seriously when it comes to professions especially in politics. First they are refuse consideration in a kinder way, like it is what is “best” for the party. That “best” is the women it seem have no influence and have to earn every bit of the grilling step they make forward. What I mean is there is something of a “norm” set for men. Look if you are a man you work hard you are recognised for your efforts. When we talk about leaders what kind of image comes to mind, (a male)another “norm”. It is true in a race for leadership and power men are always winners. Politics is a profession for men. For women politics is different, it is not a career or a profession, it is a side interest. They women are bored at home, and haphazardly enter into politics so they are not taken very seriously hence the explanation of the talking of clothes. For the women no serious consideration is given. The men they deal and the favours as a precedent goes to you know who er no I am not mentioning any scandals. The men they take care of each other. So I did find it disturbing that the media articles were written by women, that they pay lip service to the stereotyping of women. When Sharon resign she asked for commentary she was told that she intimidated other women. Yes, it is strange that we look to criticise a woman’s voice when ironically women it seem have no voice in politics. Well it not just about politics but this sort of stuff exists in other professions. This is an example of the medical field. And it starts with the medical students and educators. Think about it as “SOCIAL LOCATION”. Social location is the way we see ourselves in the locations reflected. Well no grudges that some folks are wealthy and can afford med school – it would actually be a “norm”. but some groups of people who are not the norm get interwoven in social situations and experience powerlessness. OK, so doctors are from some social class. It means they fit easily, and in the environment you work reflect the people you are, the same as the politics. Acceptance is given as a norm. A doctor is usually a heterosexual, and male (this is stereotyped) so patients are receptive to this sort of images. From a critical view this may seem already to be an advantageous position for males. So enters the female and of course she is mistaken to be a nurse. The female as the case with the politician is not the “norm” to start with, besides nurses are not profession. doctors are. so now the social location is different, so now the female becomes maginalize, hence she becomes more aware of her location and has to try much harder that extra step to win the patient trust. Even worst enters the colour doctor, they are usually mistaken for the cleaners. I wonder about the representation of colors in politics From a patient situation do the "doctors" connect with them especially if they are not mainstream?. Well all I meant is that the male doctor perspective is not necessarily the patients or other groups such as women, gays, lesbians etc but still the promotion of some groups and exclusion of others exists Meg Urry, physics professor, Yale sums it up, men are leaders at every high level profession, expectation of women are much lower. And it goes it hierarchy situation is different for women, more different for minorities, and sets apart when it comes to gays and lesbians. It is usually insidious when men say "things are getting better, slow and sure" yes we acknowledge slow but surely. so yes we have 4 women here and 21 women there and still -- look what they wear. But what this slow and sure usually means is that don’t worry your pretty head over this. Far to trivial.

this a misconception, the information would be accurate only to fit what was "canadian" 30 years ago and further back what i mean this information would not be true for certain groups or culture such as: chinese, asians, middle east folks etc. and thats the composition of the demographics now, the women you are referring to will tower of those groups anyway there is an article by Gosh & Ray “Sexism in Education” that detail how boys and girls do not benefit equally from education. they reinforce the notion that education is embedded in a structure to reflect mainstream societal practice - similar to Blackdog's post. materials for education are sexist to the benefit of boys an example given, when home economics was introduced, a parallel trades shop was set up for boys. these programs were incorporated into high school one distinguishing fact that emerged in the high school programs was that while girls were pressured to finish their home economics programs in efforts to make them homepeople the boys, on the other hand, could reconcile their options. the boys were always encouraged to choose differently if the path was university options . teachers spend longer time with boys in math and science. the reason given is that one does not need trade skill to enter into academia - yes they are streamlined for success but this is the real reason for the separation for the boys and girls - it will perpetuate a male advantage for successful higher education and successful integration in the workplace usually there were no contingencies for girls as in the example say if home economics were not their forte - yes what then. my take is that there is denial of education based on gender and this society continue to produce hopelessness of perpetual defeat that has manifested itself the instinct of women. look it, there was a research done where female becomes instinctively passive when faced with a computer malfunction in contrast, the boys would troubleshoot the problem and hence become more computer savvy. did you see demonstrated ready gap between the genders Stalker & Prentice did some work that shows how women are discouraged from entering graduate school even when they performed better in the male dominant areas of math and science separate the boys and girls then look at disparities in the genders especially in education. then look at the victims all right - it is the girls.

i am a bit weary of these reports - they always seem to be skewed to make some points favorable to who the reports are direct for, and who writes the reports well my question is who are Canadian-born folks? on a macro level i can agree with the notion of higher education = better opportunities = higher pay = promotion but that particular report failed to capture other information. people with disability pre and post university does not affect their employability status, put some color on the canadians, then look at the statistics. women in the past 20 years have advance from 40 cents to 61 cents, in comparison with the male earning $1.00. is this the advantage we are talking about in the report there is distortions in higher education, the genders are disproportionately represented in some areas of studies for example engineering, geography. what it means that one gender cannot access professional engineering jobs that have higher pay so an entire sector is beyond their reach - yes so i am glad we are all having university education now, and the wages have risen - my problem is the rise in pay in reation to education is not the same thing for the genders so first i want to accuse the position of that article for promoting the positon of education and money to male dominate audience look women are accessing the law and accounting profession equal to men somehow they remain where they entered in junior capacity with only limited chance for senior advancement. you know the one explanation given was it is a relatively new phenomenon that women are entering into these professions. and plus it takes a while to make partnership in the case of lawyers. it shows clearly how the males still would like keep their power and keep others out of the boy’s network, and keep the real meetings in the male washrooms, and at their lockers. it is also a very disturbing rationalization for women, as historically they were not given the opportunity to become a professional or access education, and now they are faced further with the same stumbling barriers to advance and bridge a gap of wages.

I don't have the stats but I am incline to believe that Sunday shopping actually contribute to the economy. I am not a religious person and I don't want to be forced into practising to rest on Sunday plus I don't want some religious fanatics set rules of how I should or should not operate. This religion of rest is really imposing on my time. I rather spend my time wisely perhaps to shop. Well what about my rights if I am not a Christian?