Rue

When I heard that I wondered how it would be received. Apparently when brave Flora McDonald dressed the Bonnie Prince Charles in woman's clothes to escape from the english, no one though him less manly..... Are you suggesting Prince Charles was a terrorist who used his religious status to incite terror in his followers? The point is the coward who escaped in women's clothes used the legitimacy and power that comes from his Muslim religious status to exploit his followers. In Pakistan the vast majority of people are still illiterate or have little if any formal education and so they rely heavily on their mullahs and immams to teach them, guide them, and tell them what to believe. The Muslim clerics abuse this power to use their religious status to advance agendas that are political and terrorist in nature and go against the teachings of the Koran. The point is the same Muslim Cleric telling others to die for the cause didn;t die for the cause, he hid like a coward. That was the point. Prince Charles was a pathetic weak despot fleeing for his life but to suggest he was engaging in the same morally equivalent act is just not true. Prince Charles crime was his birth status, not his telling people to engage in terror.

It's not even a news worthy story. It is bull-shit to run such a story without presenting its context. We do not know why the Muslim girl was where she was, why the Jewish girl was upset, and who the woman was who was trying to get between the Muslim and Jewish girl. We see ultra-orthodox Jews upset, but we do not know why. Ultra-orthodox Jews will stone or get upset at non ultra-orthodox Jews in the identical manner they would that Muslim girl and react the same way. I think someone video'ed that incident to deliberately take a minor non news-worthy incident out of context to incite hatred and anger and ferment assumptions. As a strong supporter of Israel, I come on this post many times to debate and challenge what I see are unfair comments about its right to exist. But as a strong supporter of Israel, I do NOT feel condoning ANY kind of intolerance is in the best interest of Israel. I will nopt judge what happened as I do not have the full context but I will say this-one can as I am be a strong supporter of Israel but detest violence of ANY kind and if I found out the reason for this incident was because of religious teachings that has conditioned this young Jewish girl to hate,then I will criticize it as strongly as I do when I see such things in ANY HUMAN. Judaism does not teach people it is acceptable to hate. Zionism did not contrary to what today's trendy leftists think, teach Jews to hate Muslims. That is bull. Extremism, fundamentalism, the kind of religious intolerance bred into people, I do not condone. I also think quite ironically that if these are the ultra-orthodox Jews they appear to be, then it could very well be they are anti-Zionist and just as anti-Israeli as many would assume that Muslim girl might be. Many ultra-orthodox do not recognize the State of Israel because they feel the Messiah must return first, before the state can be created. This is why these ultra-orthodox get upset with non ultra-orthodox Jews just as much as they do Muslims for certain religious reasons, and yet for other reasons, may very well march with anti-Zionists and Palestinians against Israel and in that sense not be the enemy of that girl some think they are. Then again they could be an extreme right wing group of Kahanists who are a small, militant racist sect of Jews who the vast majority of Jews would love to deport en masee back to the U.S. where they have come from. Its hard to say who they were. So no things are not black and white or what they appear to be and I say this loud and clear, Israel's future like Palestine's future, can not be based on violence and hatred. Hatred and intolerance is the obstacle all humans face when building peaceful visions and no it does not assist Israel's cause depicting such incidents as a legitimate way to express support of Israel. As Jews we are taught to use our minds and to use logic and reason. Fighting is only to be done in self-defense. One does not serve the cause of Israel or Judaism engaging in intoelrance or hatred all it does is fan people who hate on both sides of the equation. It is precisely this kind of incident that anti-Israelis and anti-semites use to incite hatred of Jews and Israelis by trying to depict us as angry abusive oppressors. I spit on such stereotypes just as I spit on anyone's attempt to try glorify violence by anyone for any reason.

It appears to be far more a 'religious' concept. Anthropologists use the term in a cultural sense. The religious types seem to be obsessed with it. Actually MadGuy even anthropolists are loath to use it any more. But before I address that I would like to defend your comments as to why race is in fact a social construct not a scientific one and so as you say used by religious types or I am sure you would agree politicians and I will try address comments Bonham made about race and physical difference. It is a scientifically proven fact that just 2% of our genes are responsible for the visible differences such as our skin colour. It is a scientifically proven fact that there is NO single gene, trait or characteristic that distinguishes one race from another for the simple reason that humans have not existed on the planet long enough to evolve into sub-species not to mention humans move about the planet mixing there genes with different populations. It is a scientific fact humans inherit their genetic disposition spontaneously. What this line off posts and the other one from Leafless are about, is about taking the concept of race and using it as a social construct to arbitrarily create some definition of what the writer feels white means and then engage in an arbitrary categorization of human race that mixes both genetic and culture traits which are then used by Scott or Leafless in a subjective manner. The term race in both lines of posts was appropriated for the purpose of engaging in a subjective series of arbitrary social constructs based on what-ever Scott or Leafless or the person defining white culture decides it means at any given time since if you notice the designation is never defined and deliberately left ambiguous so it can constantly be changed or varied to allow for maximum subjective assumptions to be stated without proving those assumptions with any objective evidence. In fact what we get are the subjective impressions of the particular writer-no more no less. In Leafless' case it is obvious he feels anyone who is gay, French, non-white or not his version of Christian is AUTOMATICALLY a threat. In Scott's case he takes more time to refine his expression and it is not about hating, it becomes a series of subjective assumptions as to how to perceive peoples' characteristics in a general way to assume they are competing with one another and one group can make another extinct. I personally believe in Scott's case his arguements are genuinely based on him feeling cultural values are distinct and compete with one another and can't co-exist, while in Leafless' presentations I believe it is simply primative hatred based on feeling the other groups are getting what he isn't in terms of social benefits. His thesis appears based on seeing himself as a victim. In Scott's thesis he doesn't see any one group as a victim nor does he portray himself as a victim but genuinely fears his traditions and cultural could get wiped out. However It is precisely because of such subjective use of the term race to suggest humans can be defined by physical difference or to say that one race has advantage over another or threatens another or is superior or inferior to another that The American Anthropological Association felt compelled to make a Statement on Race on May 17, 1998 to challenge precisely the use of race in this manner. In that statement it was suggested that the general public has been conditioned to consider human races as natural and separate divisions within human species and it can be defined and be based on visible physical differences. They went on to state that all the scientific and medical evidence we have proves objectively that humans are NOT distinct biological entities that can be divided into race categories because what we now know about DNA is that it proves 94% of physical variation exists within two people of the same so-called racial group. Genetic research has also proven that in regards to conventional geographic "racial" groupings there is only a difference between them in about 6% of their genes. They also went on to state that science has proven there is in fact greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. and that in neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. They stated that the continued sharing of genetic materials between humans has maintained all of humankind as a single species and that physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas This is precisely why they stated that the way we use the concept of race is to advocate a set of prejudgments that distort our ideas about human differences and group behavior. They stated that racial beliefs are nothing more then myths suggesting diversity in the human species which has been proven by science to not exist. They go on to say the concept of race is now used to justify negative, subjective prejudgements, as to peoples abilities or characteristics or beliefs. Take a look at this line of posts and Leafless’s ones to see why these anrhtopologists made the above statements and conclusions, and stated such racial myths fuse behavior and physical features together and all that does is distort and misrepresent scientific fact and our understanding of true biological variations and cultural behavioral differences by implying that both are genetically determined. Science has clearly rejected the use of race as means to define humans biologically and yet we still see humans using it in a social, political and religious context. It is precisely because of the above Bonham I feel categorizing perceived physical differences is scientifically absurd. It is precisely because of the above I find fusing cultural and physical differences or race into the same category as absurd and that is why I felt compelled to defend Mad Michael's statement. On the other hand Scott, I do not necessarily disagree with some of what you are suggesting but I would define it differently. I think if humans use their religion or political beliefs to justify intolerance and terror and violence-and then they feel they can import that to Canada, yes its a problem. But for me Scott the "threats" you are talking about are political. I personally believe culture and cultural differences and contrast are an essential ingredient for mental health. Humans to be healthy and happy need variety-we know that. I don't see cultural variety as a problem in fact I welcome it. But I do concede Scott that some people take their religion and fuse it with political views and technically political and religious views if passed down from generation to generation can become cultural characteristics. If those values conflict with the ones we want to define as ideal in Canada, then yes there is a problem. So the way I would construct it Scott is that someone wanting to celebrate their Muslim traditions or Hindu traditions or Scottish traditions or Gaelic traditions, etc., is NOT a threat to anyone, unless they insist everyone else conform to only their values and cease and desist with any other. To me culture only becomes a threat where one group tries to shove it down another's throat and with due respect I think certain white people on this post have confused people simply celebrating what they are openly with expecting certain white people to agree with it. They don't. I think the more insecure someone is about themself, the more likely they see anything different then them as a threat and the more secure they are about themself the less likely they will see anything different as a threat. So for me personally Scott, I do not want only one cultural in Canada. I want many and I want to be able to enjoy them all as I do different flavours of food. I do not like to buy the same wine, I like different types of wine. As a male I enjoyed before I became smelly and old, beautiful women of many categories because I believe it is the spiritual responsibility of all heterosexual men before they die to have sex with every colour of woman there is. That said Scott on a more serious note, if we specify what social values you are talking about precisely, then I think you would find consensus from most everyone that no one feels someone should think they can come to Canada and expect certian specific values to be honoured, i.e., terror as an expression of political will, polygamy, child-sex, violence against women, lying, committing crime and then trying to defend such behaviour by saying if someone else questions it, the questioner is racist or a bigot. I think Scott you have not done a sufficient job of clearly defining what values you think are being threatened because I think if you did most of us would not debate you at all and simply say yah that's obvious. But I think the threats you are presenting are not particular to any group and could just as easily originate from whites and especially the white Christians Leafless envisons himself a member of. Here is what I would say Scott. A healthy democratic society is not afraid of individual difference the celebration of different ideas but yes I agree and I am sure we all do-there are limits to anything including freedom of belief or freedom of expression. Yes we will as the years go on precisely because we have so many cultures, have to construct a more precise Canadian one to glue them all together and prevent them from conflicting. For me I believe the starting point is to take the aboriginal values and British parliamentary values that have worked and be proud of them and then not be afraid to add on other values that complement them which is pretty much what we have done and has worked damn well compared to other countries. I personally find people who whine about Canada sheltered brats. There are people literally dying who can not imagine what it is like to have what we have. Me I am a realist. I believe the clash between the East and West politically had to happen and that this clash is religious and political in nature. We use race and culture as a way to mince around the fact we are in conflict over our religious and political views. I do not subscribe to the naive belief that the East only clashes with us because we are in their countries. This idea you can hide from people with different values then you by not going to their countries is absurd.

Thank you for the response Argus. You stated you believe Argus and I quote you; "is not talking about people who don't "think or look like him" he is talking about foreigners who come here with their own cultural baggage, their own belief system, their own patriotism..." To me Argus when you label people as "foreigners who have their own culture and belief systems...their own patriotism....that is just a fancy way of mincing the words and it means people who don't look or think like youand no it has nothing to do with my preconceptions, it has to do with simply reading the context in which the above is stated. You and Scott USA for that matter, I do realize refer to people coming to Canada who have as you would say little if any intention of assimliating into Canadian society. By that I know you two are referring to honouring the laws of Canada and putting Canada first. Me and the vast majority of minorities have no problem with that comment. It is true. But that is not what Leafless is talking about. You and Scott are, not him. Read what he says and what he writes. He is not talking just about people who will not honour the laws of Canada as you and Scott are-he is talking about people who do not physically look like him or have the same blood not whether they are patriotic or not. He uses his labels and categories not because he wants to include new Canadians who will be patriotic and follow the laws, but precisely because he does not want them period. Yes Argus I did read what he has said. You stated, "Yes, I know that if you really stretch the case that Hitler accused Jews of being outsiders." I will not go there with you Argus because I have read the posts that come from you and Scott USA and I know you are honourable men and such concerns I have would not be directed to men like you when you discuss wanting minorities to put Canada first. I raise such concerns only with the views of Leafless. Much of your concerns about Canadians needing to share a common Canadian vision and putting that vision first is precisely what new Canadians want when they come hear. They come hear to be Canadians not hyphenated. I think what has happened is because Canada lacks a common vision it spreads wide spread signals it can be anything to anyone and all immigrants know that is not possible but some think they are supposed to play that game and demand rights-they think that is what they should do to be a good Canadian. You must admit this country's governments force feeds all of us this notion we are all victims in some sort of special interest group. Isn't that what Leafless is doing now. Creating for himself a victim's group and trying to get himself disability benefits? Don't confuse the vast majority of new Canadians or immigrants with a minority who come to this country to abuse it. I can assure you there are as many immigrants just as fed up with people who come here simply use iut as a pit stop convenience store. What I am saying Argus is those people who use Canada as a pit stop, are what you and ScottUSA are referring to. What Leafless is referring to are loyal, hard working minorities, who believe in this country and everything it stands for. I read what he writes Argus. I know what he refers to. His comments are not concerned with the same group you are. I read his words he is making negative generalizations about loyal Canadians who he thinks are getting things he thinks come at his expense. Ask him Argus. Ask him directly if he has a problem with minorities who put Canada first. "You seem unwilling to accept the fact that there are people here who ARE unpatrotic to Canada, who hold to their old belief systems as firmly as if they were still in the land of their upbringing." Lol. Don't let my genuine bleeding heart Liberalism fool you. I know damn well there are people coming to this country who are terrorist sympathizers or criminals. But what I am saying is this. New Canadians don't like them any more then you do. They come here to get away from them and the last thing they want, is them coming here. So yes Argus I do get it.But those minority of new Canadians that bring their shit here, new Canadians do not like them any better then you. They are more likely to cerce and commit crimes on their own kind before you. You ever notice how its more likely a new Canadian will wear an I am Canadian shirt or get all happy at Canada day then a third generation Canadian? Why is that? You really think that is the fault of immigrants or should we also be directing this lack of Canadian vision back to Canadians precisely like Leafless who have become lazy and take what they have for granted and whine and complain when they can't have things their way. "Just what do you think constitutes being a "Canadian"? Anyone who gets the paperwork? For many of us, it means more than that." Again you know where I stand Argus. I said it earlier. Canada means basic things. It means believing in all our laws and not opting out of those we don't like. It means believing in freedom of speech and permitting debate and having open elections. It means everything the Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan and Korea and World War Two and One and in Cyprus and in Serbia and in the UN peace forces in the Middle East stood for-it means believing we put reason before anger- and respect for our country before individual needs. It means not accepting terrorism as a legitimate expression of political will. It means precisely a parliamentary legislative system that comes from British and French traditions and laws but also incorporates many aboriginal traditions in the laws. It means understanding who the aboriginals are and what systems they had in place, and then how the French and British came and what happened next. It then means knowing what the contributions of the Chinese and the Sieks were, how the blacks came here from the underground and then how the Irish, Dukhabors, Jews, Ukrainians, Armenians, etc., all then came here for the same reasons-to find new opportunities after fleeing political oppression and/or weather catastrophes. It is about people turning adversity into opportunity. It is about people finding what all humans want- a home and a job and a place to raise children safely. It means not having to be afraid to practice one's religion. The only difference between you and me Argus and why our take on Leafless is different can be explained this way. See I know what Canada did ito defeat the Nazis. I was fortunate my father was in the war and I was able to grow up learning from the vets by going to the vet's hospital and legion. I know who they were. I know how many of them were Scottish and Irish and English. I also know there were aboriginals and French and Jews and Ukrainians and others in that army, etc. I know what they died for. I know they died so I could live in freedom. The only reason I have a bit of a different take is because while I have no problem being loyal to the vision those men died for and are dying for now in Afghanistan you bet I have a problem with Mckenzie King and his rabid anti-semitism and refusing to take in Jewish refugees from the holocaust. See I know the same country that has given me everything I have and will always be grateful for was also led by McKenzie King and other anti-semites like his kind including facist sympathizers and anti-semites in Quebec where I was born, who if they had their way would never have allowed my kind here and could have cared less if we were all exterminated. So no, as much as I love this country I don't kid myself for one second either and neither does any minority. We all know what the Leaflesses of Canada stand for and what they want. We have no illusions. Don't mistake having no illusions with having preconceptions. What I am saying is we know a duck when we see a duck. None of us Jew, gentile, Christian, black, etc., want to be tred upon and have it suggested because we have a different culture or skin tone this in itself makes us a threat to Canada and that is what Leafless said and he will never retract it Argus. You and Scott argue classic patriotism which you apply to all equally, white or non white. That is not my problem or what I disagree with. Leafless is talking something entirely different. Oh I read it. He is saying there is no opportunity to show one's loyalty and come and build this country-he is not about giving people a chance- he is about avoiding giving them a chance because he feels they will take his job away. No more no less. That is why Argus I may not be gay but I sure as hell will defend them when Leafless rights diatribes against them. I may not be French or aborignal or Muslim but I sure as hell won't sit while he excludes them. I have no choice Argus. I would be a pathetic excuse of a Jew if I sat back and said nothing and I would be a pathetic excude of a Canadian and a man if I sat back and said nothing. Honourable men who follow a code of decency do not sit back while others bully and try exclude people simply because of their birth right. As for the future Argus, whether we like it or not, unfortunately we will have more terrorism attacks that will polarize us and challenge our pluralism and it will do exactly what terrorists want it to do, fuel bigots to create racist back-lash which in turn will alienate minorities and then make them easier to recruit as terrorists. I know the cycle. I saw it in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Israel-Gaza-West Bank, Lebanon. The names change, but the game is the same. That is why you won't see me assuming anything negative about Muslims or anyone else. I know damn well from seeing it first hand that the only way the West will win this war going on now isif reach out to moderate Muslims and form an alliance with them. I know that and the terrorists sure as hell know that. Great civilizations and countries are built through a vision that reaches out and forms lasting peaceful relationships built on the basis of mutual respect. That is all I am saying Argus and I regret being such a long winded bleeding heart but it has to be said.

No, pretty sure that Leafless was talking about anyone NOT white , including but not limited to other non-white CDNs. As for alterations, I dont think Rue is the one trying to meet any preconceptions. Leafless missed by a country mile whatever he was trying to say. Guyser he didn't miss what I said at all and that is precisely why he told me to f..ck off and called me a "fag". He panicked. He has no idea what he is and if he's asked to state it, of course he lashes out. Its supposed to scare me and deflect from the fact he can't answer. That is what cowards do. They first come on and sound all tough and tell others what they aren't and what they can never be, then when he's confronted and asked a simple question-just what are you Leafless, all he can do is cling to the negatives. I challenge anyone to read ANY thing Leafless has said and show me what his culture is. I know you can tell me what it isn't. I also think Guyser that the difference between ScottUSA or Argus is I know where they are coming from. I totally disagree with them but I know where they come from and I get it and I get what they say. I do not think they hate anyone but they have strong values they want to honour. I do not doubt either as men nor do I need to debate them or get in their face as to their beliefs. Leafless I do because he is a man who in fact exploits people like Scott and Argus and pretends he is with them when he despises what they stand for as much as he does what I stand for because when push comes to shove I do not think for a second Argus or ScottUSA will place me in a camp because I disagree with them-and that is something Leafless has no time of day for. What he has stated isn't defining what he is-its a pretense for trying to change the law simply to favour what-ever is best for him at any given moment. Postit got it dead on. If you read what went on in Nazi Germany you had Germans stating that National Socialism was designed to protect their culture from the threat of Jews and non Christians. Soon it turned onnot just Jews but Christians, socialists, gays, and traditional conservatives who I would equate with Argus. It became simply a philosophy of marginalized men who had never made much of themselves in life, suddenly being able to wear a brown or black shirt. They had not a clue what they stood for like Leafless, and so they needed to wear uniforms to compensate and make those uniforms seem like that is what they stood for. When you listen to Hitler's speeches and those written by Goebbels there are ample references to what Germans were not, but when it came to express what they were, the references to Aryanism became confused. They began to bastardize references to Hindu or Zoroastrean/Persian culture. The people attracted to this were people who felt they could not get good jobs or others were taking their jobs away from them. So they put on a brown or black shirt, dressed up in riding pants and did sometimes no different then what Leafless has done with his words-warn people about the demise of a culture as a result of vermin from within. And then yes it atrracted the Moxies, more and more people not certain of who they were suddenly feeling they could be something important by putting down others. All Adolph Eichman was, was a failed chicken farmer. Goebbels an unemployed failure. Gerring- a heroin addict who kept his predeliction to have sex with young boys hidden-Rudplph Hess, a chronic depressive alcoholic. Yah a bunch of tough guys. Hitler, was simply a dysfunctional failed artist who could not sustain an erection and had an inability to be spontaneous or create as manifested in his art and his book Mein Kempf which is a remarkably fragmented and disjointed discourse that says what he hated and wanted destroyed but could not describe what he wanted to build. In fact Hitler needed a man like Wilhelm Schrier or others to build for him because he had no vision. It was why he could not sustain leadership in battle. His mind could not create and improvise, it could only react, then label and compartmentalize as is the case with anyone who can't find their way to being able to think but can mimmick. In any event Guyser what I find truly sad is that the Leafless comments tend to incite others who also hate themselves as we saw iit Moxy.'s responses Its sad humans can be so easily influenced by another's intolerance and no you will never see Leafless debate someone like me with words. He would have no clue where to start because to debate me he will have to say what he is, and under no circumstance willl he do that. Its sad because this entire line of posts is nothing but a sham- a platform for one man to couch his hatred and sucker others into his bidding my giving it the appreance of a cultural discussion. I have yet to see one line in this series of posts defining what this culture is being defended. This was as I said never a discussion about how we define and share a common Canadian vision-it was and still is about one man feeling the world is out to get him to he must get the world before it gets him. And no I do not expect anything but swear words, and words like fag and Paki coming out of it. Its not rocket science now is it.

This is in response to the love comments from Moxie which I quote with quotation marks; "do we continue to allow them to drain the White cultural lifeblood out of Canada" "I prefer to ignore those who freak out when they here the term "White Man"" "Why are "White" and "Native" peoples excluded from multicultual events, why are they denied funding?" "For the following special interest groups cash is abundant: Pakies, East Indians, Lebanese, Greek, Asians etc." "Name something the above group did to shape or mold this country? " "where is this multiculture horse shit everyone blathers on about. IT doesn't exist, it's a lie perpetrated by the Liberals to get the VOTE from immigrants and minorities of color." "In Canada we have Christmas, Easter, Valentines Day, our roots and our culture is Christian White, " First of all Moxie you made an earlier comment that Canada is not democratic nd then you accused it of being both socialist and facist at the same time. I would suggest you try travel outside Canada and understand what it is to live in a totalitarian state before you whine about Canada. I would also suggest your confusion as to facism and socialism may stem from the own confusion you indicated comes from you being half-Scott, have aboriginal which you sprinkled in your comments. I would ask anyone to look at any of the above comments. This Argus is what this post is about. It is not about a sane, rational discussion on all of us creating and sharing a common Canadian vision-it is about hating those perceived different then the writer and of course someone like Leafless attracts posters such as the above. As for you Moxie, you use racist words suck as Paki and I suppose that makes you feel tough right? I am not going to waste to much energy but to say one thing-if you want to come on this forum and suggest funding for the groups you mentioned is larger then those for the other groups you mentioned, prove it. You can't because your comments are simply you expressing your own subjective presumptions. You know damn well you haven't a clue what the actual funding is handed out. More to the point you don't go to any multi-cultural events because if you did, you would know that many aboriginal communities make it a point to reach out to other communities in multi-cultural and multi-faith events and so do man English and Scottish groups. You would not know that because you are too busy making it up as you go along. From the sounds of your confusion as to what facism and socialism are and your claiming Canada is not democractic, I doubt you have ever travelled anywhere where you have had to understand what it is like to live without freedom. I think you are so consumed with your own self-hatred and confusion as to what you might be like Leafless you have emersed yourself in the hate exercise that comes from a soul that can spit out what it isn't but can't say what it is and resents anyone he thinks can say what they are. Moxie, maybe its time instead of being afraid of what you might be and imitating people that hate aboriginals simply because of their culture, maybe you should find out about that culture and your Scottish one, reconcile them and share them with others. If you think Leafless is going to sit and have a beer with you and let you move into his neighbourhood, grow up. You are right. To him you will always be a half-breed and no sucking up to his hatred and trying to join him, won't make the hate from him go away. Many minorities think if they turn into tormentors the other tormentors will leave them alone. Got news for you Moxie. You can't escape being tormented unless you learn to accept yourself. Now you want to act all tough like Leafless be my guest. We have an expression for people who try sound tough by imitating racists-its called a toothless man condemned to finding the rest of his life the only food available is tough steak.

Of course they are not. If "the White Canadian majority" truly belived that their "White culture" needed protecting, they would preserve those traditions in the same way any other culture does, by passing it on to their kids. If they truly felt they genetic lineage was threatned, they could maintain their genetic purity by mating with others of similar genetic characteristics and having lots and lots of children. They fact that they don't seems to indicate that others of "the White Canadian majority" don't have the same concern you express. Renegade the problem with mating within the same gene pool is that after awhile you end up having to f..ck your relatives and that leads to things like webbed fingers, sloping fore-heads, and men with bad teeth gathering in the country to form militias to prepare to attack people who do not have webbed fingers and sloping heads. Also I think its how Lawrence Welk got his start. His legacy lives on in re-runs. There's a reason why he was born in the U.S. but spoke the way he did. I also think he hid his webbed fingers pretty good but those powder blie jackets-were a dead give away.

Your right, this is a private war between Canada's main political parties, the Liberals=Quebec and the Conservatives= English Canada, a carry on from the 'War on the Plains of Abraham'. So we must hear more how to break up their little game or do we continue to allow them to drain the White cultural lifeblood out of Canada. So far it seems the Libs are winning with their cultural diversity tactics to obliterate Canadian White culture. I prefer to ignore those who freak out when they here the term "White Man". I think the first step to undoing what the left or liberals have done to our culture is to start re-educating our young about Canadian Heritage. First and for most reconize the Native Community and their proud heritage. They've added alot of great things to Canadian Culture. Canada has since been colonized by many different people from Europe, Ireland, Scotland, China, Greeks the list is endless. Gaelic is currently still spoken in Cape Bretain, in fact they have a gaelic college. There is nothing wrong with re-establishing contact with our European ancestors nor is it racists to be proud of one's heritage. I'm half scots and half native, I'm proud of that fact but I'm a Canadian first and formost. The left and socialist in Canada use the term multiculture but how can we be a Multicultural Society when those of us who assended from European and Native ancestors are excluded from this group. Why arn't the Natives, Scots, Brits and Irish allowed to participate in Multicultural Events? Why are they denied grants to hold multicult special events? Because the left and left/left pander to persons of color and immigrants of color for their votes. These voters lap up the myth called multi cult. God forbid we the light skined crowd grow a voice and renounce multicult for what it is-segragation and discrimination of whites. If we speak up the snot and bawlers will scream "RACISTS" like stuck pigs, are we racist- of course not we just want equal treatment under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. EQUILITY isn't racists, well it is to the left/left. Let the racist comments commence, but first let the namby pamby crowd answer the questions I posed above: Why are "White" and "Native" peoples excluded from multicultual events, why are they denied funding? For the following special interest groups cash is abundant: Pakies, East Indians, Lebanese, Greek, Asians etc. are all given funding to pontificate and brag about their heritage so why did the liberals segregate and discriminated against "Whites" and Natives? Name something the above group did to shape or mold this country? Other than those who came from China who died laying our rail line none of the above group has added to our culture in anyway. So where is this multiculture horse shit everyone blathers on about. IT doesn't exist, it's a lie perpetrated by the Liberals to get the VOTE from immigrants and minorities of color. In Canada we have Christmas, Easter, Valentines Day, our roots and our culture is Christian White, screaming and hollering racist is not going to change that. I'll place a roll of bounty for the snot and bawlers at the bottem of this post, heavens knows you'll start screaming "RACISTS". LOL from a half breed, yea sure whatever. I myself don't freak at the words "White Man". I do ont he other hand jump depending on the context of how they are used. You see, if some gorgeous young woman wants to call me that in the right setting, I have no problems. If someone with a bat tells me they are about to whip my ass because I am a white man or because I am not a white man, well yes, I have the sense to run if I think the odds are against my nose remaining in one place. Come on. Get real. This is not about and has never been about Valentine's day. And me, I do not scream and holler because I stand my ground and simply remove the shit from my lawn and give it back to the person who left it there. I am simply sharing the love or shit depending on how you want to contextualize that.

What is wrong with you? Why are you so afraid? One might almost think, from your attacks and mocking of whites, your pidgin English grammatical constructs, and your near hysterical jamming, that you are an ESL who would love to see white society descend into the muck of third world culture. Oh come on Scott you love mud and jello wrestling as long as you get to watch. Who are you kidding.

I response to your following comment Leafless" "Argus leaves a lot to be desired in the many things he says and is functionally literate and delivers the things he says well, but certainly is no great political guru." Leafless 2 things. Firstly my problem is not with Argus. In the event someone threatens his family with terror he will have no problems finding me. Other then that, no Leafless I do not need to join his clubor anyone else's. You Leafless, on the otherhand repeatedly avoid saying what you stand for and what you believe in. You couch your references to what you stand for with deliberately vague and subjective words that negate values but do not propose any. In fact Leafless, you enagge in the exercise of avoiding having to engage in thought process. You engage in the exercise of avoiding having to create any value. The values you think express are what? Well we know you referred to pale skin but that of course becomes meaningless because if one prods you its not just pale skin, it must be the pale skin of someone caucasian-when you are prodded as to what caucasian means, that soon becomes English cacasian, and when that is prodded, becomes Anglo-Saxon, and when that is prodded becomes Christian and when that is prodded becomes your kind of Christian and when that is prodded there is no explanation of what that kind of Christian is but there are constant responses from you as to what you are not and what you do not stand for. See Leafless we all get it. It requires zero thought process to say what one is not. It requires zero thought process to constantly keep varying values the moment they are questioned. That Leafless is not about being intellectual-its about avoiding having to think and define and conceive. So yes Leafless I have read what you have written. I see you mince your words to avoid having to define anything. Leafless hear me loud and clear; 1-you Sir do not tell me under any circumstance that I am not loyal to my country and am a threat to you because I do not share your alleged genetic traits AND agree with your rules as to what is acceptable; 2-you Sir do not make the rules; 3-you Sir do not get to tell me I am a threat to you because you can't fix the rules to assure you make sure you have something I can not; 4-you Sir feel threatened by me, not because I do not agree with you-but because I won't agree with you; 5-you Sir will be treated by me the way I expect to be treated, no more no less-try treat me in any manner that shows the presumption you are better then me or superior to me or need to take something from me without reciprocating and I will make no mistake about it, do what it takes to survive and assure you do not impose yourself upon me; 6-you Sir will find me a threat if you try threaten me; 7-I am not interested in people who can not define what their culture is and what they stand for; 8-I am not interested in anyone who finds others threatening because of envy; 9-I Sir do not feel morally superior to you because you hate me or like me; 10-I Sir do not define my values based on whether they are acceptable to you; 11-I Sir respect any man who can based on merit kick my ass because I am intelligent enough to call them teacher; 12-I spew by liberal venom at you because it makes me have a good laugh and realize men have no clue what to do with their testacles after a certain age other then get them jammed in small corners they should not try squeeze them into; 13-as much as I despise what you stand for I would be the first to defend you if I thought someone would do to you what you have expressed you would be willing to do to others. Now go play Leafless before I try give you a big wet kiss and tell everyone you are gay and enjoyed it.

Argus You said; "Leafless simply posted in a simplistic, reflexive manner without putting a lot of thought into things. " Well yes Argus that is precisely what hate is-a simplistic reflex without much if any thought. "Comparing him to Hitler". I do not know Leafless as a person. No. I do not know him. But I do find what he said in his posts exactly the platform Hitler advocated. I don't think that is a stretch to say at all. Calling him Hitler personally-no. Calling what he says no different then what Hitler advocated is the point and having relatives who died in the holocaust and a refugee family on my mother's side, no I did not find it offensive for someone to say that. In fact I was relieved it was someone other then me and I am glad they said it. I also respectfully disagree that what he says is not rooted in racism. It is necessarily hateful to suggest people who do not think like him or look like him are not patriotic or loyal to Canada. That is racist. It is hateful and spiteful and deliberate not accidental. When you accuse someone of not being patriotic because they don't have pale skin or aren't his version of Christian that is racist b.s. and no my father didn't fight in the Air Force and Army to have people like Leafless question his loyalty to Canada or mine. So no Argus this is not a discussion on all of us working to be loyal to Canada and sharing the same vision.

Come on Rue, you should understand the concern, being a Jew. Jews have existed as a distinct ethnocultural group for over 3000 years. Some would even consider Jews to be a race (or a collection of races). Where Jews have existed as minorities in the nations of other races or cultures, they have suffered discrimination to some extent throughout almost this entire historical period. Is it not a valid concern for Jews to want to remain as Jews, propagate their ethnicity and culture (or at least some aspects thereof) through the generations, and protect themselves from discrimination by maintaining a primarily Jewish homeland? If anything, the continued existence of Jews has shown that resistance definitely is NOT futile. If it is a valid concern for Jews, why would a similar concern not be valid for other ethnic, racial, or cultural groups that may feel that they also could be threatened, in the future? I am a Reform Jew and as BIG R Reform as you can get. Know what that means? I find this notion that you stay in a ghetto and inbreed as a way to keep your people pure, absurd. I believe by staying in a ghetto and not mixing, that is precisely what dooms you to extinction, the lack of fresh ideas and blood. No I do not see the reason for the holocaust or the reason Jews suffered from persecution because they allowed themselves to be assimilated. In fact I would say precisely because the Christian world for the most part made it impossible for Jews to assimilate, forcing us to remained visible and segregated and therefore easier to target for hatred. Look at the suffering of the Romanos (gypsies). You think some of it is not related to not being able to assimilate? I also think if the holocaust showed us anything, it didn't make a difference whether Jews were assimilated or not, they were exterminated equally. That is the point. People who hate, could not care less whether you are assimilated or not , they will find a way to categorize and hate you. No I am not an ultra-orthodox Jew who shuns the world and insists on engaging in practices I know exclude anyone but my own kind. I am also not someone who believes in a Jewish state because it gives Jews an opportunity to NOT be anything else. Not at all. My take on Israel is that it was a necessity to prevent further racism in the Middle East and Europe but no I do not subscribe to Israel as being created to avoid dealing with anyone else and hide from them and "resist " them. Israel is not just about resistance. It is also about taking a place in a greater family on the world stage. That is precisely why I am a Reform Jew and my support of Zionism is done as a Reform Jew or Diaspora Jew (non Israeli Jew) who is fully aware Israel could not exist if it were not for people like me who stay in the diaspora and reach out to non Jews and live with them and interact with them and form coalitions of mutual support and harmony. It is precisely why my support of Israel includes support for another Palestinian state for the Muslims of the West Bank and despite the terror, to reach out to Palestinians and never give up hope of peace. No thank you, I do not think the way to preserve my people's memory is to resist assimilation. Jews in fact would have become extinct had Jews not learned to adapt and live in many cultural conditions. That is precisely why we survived and still survive-because we do not shun the world, we engage with the world even when it despises us. You mistake the concept of what a Jew is. Being a Jew is not about what it isn't. We don't define being a Jew as NOT being a Muslim or NOT being a Christian. The essence of a Jew does not come from defining our differences or what we are not-it comes from believing we have an obligation to heal the earth and give out positive energy. You are mixing up assimilation with cultural extinction and thinking one must necessarily lead to the other. When I learn about other cultures and share mine with them, it makes me a stronger Jew spiritually, not a weaker one and many Jews agree with me. I am not a weak afraid Jew. I know exactly what it means to me. That is precisely why I do not fear assimilation leading me to extinction. I am not so uncertain as to who I am that if I venture out of the ghetto I will forget and start calling bagels (bah-gulls). I know why I was circumsized and what the 10 commandments are and what my mother's family and grandparents went through. My grandfather would not have lived had non Jews not come out of their own ghettoes and helped him and he did the same with non Hews . Now I do the same. I want to be part of a greater family, not just my own because I know for us all to survive we need to venture out and form friendships. Just as non Jews reached out and helped by grandfather, his daughter then reached out to help non Jews suffering the same problems years later. That is the essence of Judaism. Helping heal the world through positive sharing and no teekam olum the essence of Judaism is not limited to Jews the reaching out and sharing is between Jews and non Jews not just with Jews. So no I do not think assimilation automatically leads to extinction and no, please don't buy into a very ancient Christian stereotype of Jews that we are all klanish and resist assimilation and fear it and think the way to preserve our culture is to avoid becoming like others. That is a stereotype as epitomized by literature with Fagan or Shylock but make no mistake I am no tragic figure fearing the world as my enemy. Not a f..cking chance. I embrace the world and stand tall smack dab in it in Chinatown, or any other cultural milieu. Even orthodox Jews who are far less "assimilated" then myself still would agree with me that if they live in Canada, their first loyalty is to Canada and they will subscribe to everyone of its laws, and live in peace with people who are not Jewish. In that respect they are "assimilated" just not to the degree I am. They probably do not consider me Jewish enough. Yet while they probably don't feel I am Jewish enough, I still encounter those who read my last name and assume I am too Jewish for them. To me it doesn't matter what either side thinks. I do not create my identity on how I perceive others defining me. Thank you I define myself for myself. So please don't usemy Jewishness to try label me into black and white category. That is stereotyping and I am not typical of anything. If you want to properly know what I am try this on for size; I consider myself a Jewish culturally and racially and then Jewish partially when it comes to religion, but I also consider myself to be a guy with red hair and freckles who is mistaken for Irish and no I do not get upset when they say funny you do not look Jewish and feel the need to lash out and scold-no instead I make a dry joke pointing out the absurdity of the statement-it doesn't scare me people might be ignorant of me. I live in Canada. Its a country founded by non Jews precisely so I do not have to be afraid and I cherish that. Its why non Jews are engaging in a war in Afghanistan and I embrace them openly and thank them so I can remain a Canadian and most importantly feel safe as a Jew to be a Canadian and also Jewish and understand the two are not exclusive but inclusive. That is why those soldiers are over there. Of couirse I embraces concepts of the native peoples, Taoists, Buddists, unitarians, gonstic Christians, Wiccans, humanists, bahaiis, hindus, muslims, zoroastreans, gays or anyone who has something positive to share with me about spirituality or life. The only time I will not listen is if someone tells me their way is the only way. Then I say thanks, get off my lawn. I completely subscribe ot the British parliamentary system and the laws of Canada and everything Canada stands for precisely because I can live as a Jew and not be shot by the police for being Jewish. My assimilation has not made me any less of a Jew. It makes me a better Jew. You are mistaking being open minded and embracing others with forgetting who we are and where we come from as indioviduals. It is possible to balance the two for me. I do not see them as in conflict. I see them as two parts of a greater whole and I mold them both into what I am. So know I am not afraid of venturing out of the ghetto and no thank you I do not want a hyphen in the word Canadian to describe me-I know what I am, where I came from, where I must go.

The Jew's biggest defenders today are the caucasian race And how would you measure that? No seriously. I believe there are good and bad people of all races. But yes I must admit, some of my best friends are Caucasian and yegads Christian too!!!!!! I take people as I find them. I have found ignorant racist people in all races and cultures and I would say in my subjective experiences, its been pretty much the same in all of them-some good, some bad, some in between. Actually growing up I was exposed to some very nasty caucasians for many years. But I did not let that "colour" me and allow me to hate caucasians. Some of my best friends are Caucasian and yegads Christian. I just can't deal with the butter and ham sandwitch thing or lettuce and tomatoes on bagels and them calling bagels (bah-gulls) or not understanding what rye bread and mustard is used for or that you don't put lettuce and tomato with smoked meat and if you do not use rye bread then the only acceptable alternative is an onion bun not a Kaiser bun. Also I do not understand why they serve ham with a fishnet stocking. I find that very savage. Also what's with this attracttion to argyle socks and quilts? Also I have to draw the line at blood sausage and calf's brain. Other then that I am quite tolerant of caucasians. Even when they can't dance or tell me Camilla Parker Bowles is attractive.

These discussions remind me of the Borg in Star Trek and how race is seen like the Borg coming to assimilate and swallow everyone up. In my younger days I liked assimilating with Borgs from many quadrants. I agree with Kimmy though. To me the key to assimilating with Borgs is to find one who smell nice, has good teeth and nice hair and of course has no skin lesions. That is the key.

Physical evolutionary factors are not really at play any more. A black person living in the north isn't going to die from vitamin D defficiency from insufficient sunlight, because he can just take some vitamins. A white person living on the equator isn't gonna die from sunburn, he can just put on some sunscreen. Those are simplifications of course, but the point is that modern technology removes a lot of evolutionary factors that originally made peoples in certain geographic areas differ in the way they do. Well then, presumably, we'll all blend together into one homogeneous race again, as we were in the beginning. It stands to reason. We know that if any life form in-breeds and doesn't vary its genetic pool, it dies out. However the dying out is gradual and in the interim I have to put up with people burning crosses on my lawn.

Culture or cultural variation? Culture is a subjective word. If I was from Australia I would not see a cultural difference between East and West Canadians but I might notice a difference in language spoken. What you consider cultural difference another might find simply a cultural variation since their predominant way of defining would be by language or nationality and that is why this post is so bloody retarded. Humans by their nature will label and place things into categorizations to make them easier to understand. Some of us though get so obessed with the need to label and categorize we feel "threatened" which is a simple way of saying, we don't think can't find enough labels when it could be they simply are labelling to much in the first place and just have to learn to let things flow. People obsessed about difference necessarly become uncertain and in a constant state of anxiety because when they say they feel threatened what they really mean is they don't think they have control or enough labels. This post is nothing more then someone who feels he is in a factory and lost control of the assembly line while he thinks he sees others able to continue at the speed he can not. So now he cries out-those people that work at the other pace-they endanger me and my job someone get rid of them before I lose my job! I would suggest his problem is very simple. He simply needs more bran in his diet, perhaps a colonic irrigation or two and needs a night out dancing in a club with some dark sinned people and eating spicy food. Either that or a heart transplant. And no I will no let up until someone admits culture and race and religion, are simply labels-subjective labels. The colour of blood on the other hand does not vary unless of course you have a particular blood disorder or are from Zeticula Romuli, then it is supposedly a blackish green.

"No one can stop people from being multicultural anyway. " According to Leafless he can. He will deport them. He will also legislate laws to prevent culture and religion other then his own. Read what he writes. He has it all figured out on how to sanitize Canada and save it. That is what the article is about SAVING HIS CULTURE which he believes is the only acceptable Canadian culture. To save his culture he simply gets rid of all the others. 'When people are offended at everything predominant here.' You mean Leafless being offended at the fact that he feels there are too many people with dark skin or gays or non christians predominating his country? Did it ever dawn on you that many of these alleged offended people are the very same people you are and Leafless is or do you think only people with dark skin get offended? "The fact that poppies blew in Flander's Fields beneath some "CROSSES" should not affect a Muslim's ability to be muslim." Well the next time I see a Muslim I will be sure to tell them you said that then tell them Leafless feels they are not patriotic and should leave. Yes as far as I know, Muslims al of them in Canada, sit obsessing about Flander's Fields and what it means to them. "the Alabama Legislature had to scrap the Commandments. Why?" In the United States (yoo-nuh-eye-ted stuh-ayt-sss ) they have what is called constitution (con-stih-too-shun). That constitution states that church and state are to remain seperate (seh-puhr-ate). It says that because it felt tyrany comes about when one pople try impose their religious (ree-lij-uss) views on someone else. It was felt if a government would be all things to all people, then it could not just be certain (suh-err-ten) things to certain people. Thus the constitution does not allow religious displays in public institutions. It has nothing to do with multi-culturalism or the prevention of it. By the way this is Canada. (KAH-NAH-DUH) is not ALABAMA. We have a different constitution. Did you know that? Did you know we are a different country and that Alabama is a state is in the United States and so has different laws? Did you know Alabama is where they used to lynch people with dark skin and called them other folks who wrote the ten commandments they now suddenly care about, JUH-OOOH- BOYZ... You see for some people in Alabama they get nervous when they hear people saying they want to preserve Christian values because in the past when they heard that phrase the person was usually wearing a pointed hood and burning a cross on their lawn and lynching someone. Kind of brings back memories. But if I tell you that would you think I am shoving my culture down your throat? Please, don't feel you need to go to a Barbra Streisdan concert!

Following the level of Leafless's original and continued posts I think you are a poo head and there should a law against you for being a poo head. POO HEAD DEPORTATION LIST anyone with a tan or dark skin anyone who is not protestant gays anyone whose name can not be pronounced with one verb anyone who does not speak English anyone with their own teeth anyone who reads anything but what Leafless tells them they can read anyone who thinks anything Leafless doesn't agree with

So...I guess that white people can't have Christianity as part of their culture, right? You might recall that Jesus was a brown fella. Hey don't forget not only was he "dark" but yegads he was a Jew too! But then in Leafless' world we select what we want and simply legislate out the rest.

Response to Bonam. In regards to this passage I stated; "The first is the kind of talk that comes from economic migrants that came to Canada from poor countries to work as cheap labour. Yes if you hear them talk there is a tone of resentment they had to come here and it sounds they do not appreciate Canada and are complaining. You have to listen more carefully. It sounds that way but they don't hate or resent Canada, they simply lament the fact they can't go back and are homesick. First generations are like that. But look at their children. Their children are Canadian and they know that and they appreciate their children are safe and have opprtunities they do not have." My intent was not at all to generalize. If you read the preface, I was saying it may be there are some who talk this way and then misundestood. I should have been more clear. I do not wish to generalize on behalf of anyone other then to try explain what might be misunderstood. I agree with your statement that this is not and should not be considered a generalization of all immigrants or anyone. Its just an explanation of why some comments could be misconstrued. "Many immigrants, even of the first generation, quickly assimilate into Canadian culture, and are able to work in fields besides cheap labour." I of course agree and would not suggest otherwise. However as you also know many immigrants do not get work in the area of their trained profession and of course when that happens they will complain or be unhappy and people could misunderstand that as hating Canada when all it is-is the frustration of going from a doctor to a taxi driver and wanting to be something else. "I do research in space science myself, and know dozens of other first generation immigrants that work in a variety of fields, none of which is cheap labour. " I would not suggest that for one second. However interestingly, and I am sure you are aware, there is a tremendous struggle for immigrants to transfer a profession from one jurisdiction to another and it can lead to harship and frustration. I would never suggest new Canadians can not make it or or not doing well no generalizations. "However, others simply have no interest in assimilating in Canadian culture. " Yes we have to be realistic some new Canadians have no interest in assimilating and do not and this can happen in the same extended family where you see one brother assimilating and the other refusing to. Is it a deliberate refusal or is it merely the fact that some people can not handle change as well as others? I leave that to others to decide. Again I do not want to generalize. "Most commonly, this happens when there is a large pre-existing community of their same culture already existing in the location they move to. This decreases their need and desire to assimilate." Absolutely proven in social studies. Its common sense. The more cultural support you have the less need there is to adapt as quickly. "That's why excessively high immigration rates, which can lead to the formation of ethnic "quarters" in a city, can lead to greater segregation and tension, rather than greater mixing and cultural understanding." Absolutely and I am glad you raise this topic with the words you use as you do not single out any particular group and suggest what they do is deliberate. It stands to reason, if immigrants pool into ethnic pockets or ghettoes as has happened in Canada this pooling interferes with assimilation. Add to that a confusing multi-cultural policy that unintentionally encourages resisting assimilation and it gets confusing. If we look at Toronto, yes it is pockets of ethnic groups. If you were a Muslim from Palestine, would you not move to Mississauga, the largest Palestinian population outside the Gaza and West Bank? if you were say Punjabi would you not want to move to Brampton where other Punjabis are? You go where your fellow people are. Its human nature and federal immigration policy has failed to work with its provinicial and municipal government levels to create a cohesive policy to encourage immigrants to move away from the large cities. The vast majority of immigrants settle in Toronto, followed by Vancouver, then Montreal. "It needs to be a higher priority of the government to make sure that assimilation happens, rather than ethnic segregation into quarters within Canadian cities." I agree with you. Then again as a Reform Jew, I have been brought up to believe a Jew can be Jewish but must also find ways to assimilate and live outside the ghetto with non Jews. There are those in my religion (the ultra-orthodox) or even some orthodox who would not want to assimilate to the level I did and do and would consider it sacreligious. Likewise in the Muslim community or Hindu community or Siek and many others you see that phenomena going on and often the stronger and more fundamentalist the religious influence, the more that religion serves to work against assimilation and for maintaining segregation. That is why you and I agree religion can't be imposed on anyone. "I don't believe in any type of religion in the first place. " I respectfully disagree. I believe any religion if practiced with moderation is not a problem. I think while fundamentalist and extreme religious values promote intolerance, liberal, modern, moderate religious values can promote inter-faith harmony and tolerance. Also I would never dream of telling anyone they can't practice their religion. All I say is, if you want me to respect your religion, you must respect everyone else's as well. You can't expect people to respect your religion, if you have no respect for their religion. It is because of that need for mutual respect, we have to back away from trying to push any religion down anyone's throat. "However, certain aspects of culture should indeed be imposed. " Interesting you raise that arguement because some social scientists will say the moment you have to force the culture, it will be spit back. Many social scientists feel the best way to assimilate people is not by force but by incentive-you know the old Aesop's fable, the wind blew hard to get the guy to take off his coat but the sun shone down and the guy took off his coat not because of the wind trying to force it off, but because of the radiance of the sun? That sort of reasoning. Social scientists believe the most effective social policies are ones people embrace and are not forced on them. Is that possible? Well yes. We have tried to provide tax incentives and scholarships and job sponsorships in smaller communities. Some have worked,s ome have not. But its an area we certainly can expand on and would work if the federal government, and its provincial and municipal counter-parts stopped working at cross purposes. "If an immigrant's culture has a very degrading view of women, should we not impose our different view, which is more acceptable in Canada, on that immigrant? I think so. I think if you want to come from a culture where you consider women infeior or gays evil, etc., no we can not tolerate such things. We all must follow the same laws and with certain cultural values yes, someone has to draw a line and say, if you are not prepared to live with this, go or don't come here. We do live in a democracy though and the Canadian Charter of Rights does allow people to run for office on platforms stating they believe we should impose certain Muslim or Christian values, etc. Its up to people to reject such views if they are intolerant and I think most Canadians do. I don't think you will see any Muslim extremist or Leafless elected to office. "If an immigrant's culture glorifies some forms of violence, should we not impose our Canadian culture, which shuns these forms of violence, on that immigrant? " Again I would have to stongly agree. Surely no form of violence is acceptable. We as a country do not believe in or subscribe to terrorism and signed international conventions to that effect. Bonam when people like you discuss this issue without singling out any particular group and assigning negative characeteristics to them, you show how it is possible to raise and discuss the same topic without exploiting it to advocate racism. I am glad you came on and redirected the conversation. While I personally agree with you, I do not expect anyone else to agree or not agree. I personally believe though we can be a tolerant accomodating country but of course we also have to draw a line-freedom is not an infinite value that just goes on and on. It has its limits and yes it can be difficult to set limits to protect freedom but we do it with laws. I just won't sit by while someone tries to use the law to be intolerant of others and put them down and use the law to promote inequality. I also think people who state aboriginals seek extra rights and seek to exempt themselves from our laws are not right. In the case of aboriginals, unlike all other Canadians, they preceded our legal system of rights, and our legal system recognized their system and entered into agreements with them which we then did not honour and now have to. That is an entirely different situation. Everyone of us other then aboriginals are immigrants. Some of us simply are descended from immigrants who came before other immigrants.In historic terms we make a big deal about the French and British coming first but the fact is they did not, the aboriginals did and we could all do with some of their customs that say, none of us own the planet-we can learn to share it and respect it, or we are doomed to the consequences of ignoring the fact that the earth is not ours to control or own-we are temporary guests on it and all this bullshit of who owns what in the name of God, means very little as long after we are gone, the planet continues.

Here is what you do when someone like Leafless engages in negative generalizations; 1. take his passage; "Let's face it jdobbin, Islamic-Muslims cannot bear their hallucinatory fantasies of being beaten down by especially American White Christians and their associated political and social ideologies." 2-then change the object of hatred; Lets face it jdobbin, people like me, white Christian cannot bear their halucinatory fantasies of being beaten down especially by anyone with dark skin or non Christian and their associated political and social ideologies. All you have to do is reverse the object of hatred coming from a Leafless to understand what they project and really feel; and that is; "Me, Leafless, I fear being beaten down by Islamic-Muslims/people with dark skin/non Christians." It is that simple, and that pathetic. When people make negative generalizations about others, I ask, what is it they hate so much in themselves that then causes them to externalize and blame their self-hatred on others? Tell us Leafless. What causes you to belief you can take all Muslims and lump them in one category and make the negative generalization they all fear being beaten down by America white Christians? At least this time Leafless your true colours slip. You didn't say American whites, you stated American White Christians. Its interesting you didn't state American white Christians and Jews just American white Christians. Hmmm. Golly. Did any of you think Jews were white? Think again. This is precisely why I tell people of colour, yah you think we Jews are white-we look that way to you but believe me we don't look that way to the Leafless' of the world. To them we aint white cuz we aint Christian. That said why would anyone attempt to take Leafless seriously when his posts simply refer to ethnic groups in generalized statements of negativity? To me he is not worthy of a response and abuses the platform of freedom of speech to incite hatred and that is why I speak up. Whether the object of hatred is a Christian, Muslim, Jew, gay or anyone else, it is wrong to hate. And no Leafless can not claim he speaks on behalf of Christians. Christians were not taught to go around hating. They were taught to love. Show me in the Christian Bible where it says-go around and hate your fellow man. Leafless is no different then what he thinks he criticizes. He is just as facist, just as bitter, just as exclusive, just as angry and every bit as hateful. There is no difference between Leafless and some angry facist terrorist claiming to be Muslim. He calls himself a Christian as they do a Muslim. Both are to me, simply angry hateful men who use religion as a weapon.

Bonam you are talking something absolutely different then what Leafless is. What you are discussing which is entirely different and could have been raised without the racist buzz words and code words is the following; if someone brings a cultural value to Canada that is in direct conflict to Canada's what should we do. You are damn right to ask that question. No it is completely unrealistic to think we can tell ultra-orthodox Jews or certain Muslims or fundamentalist Christians they can impose their laws on all of us and opt out of the laws of Canada they do not like. That is a different issue and what racists do is take their own agenda of intolerance and try use that issue to get there's out. People of all cultural groups who come to Canada have to take pride in Canada and understand Canada comes first. What I am telling you is the vast majority of Canadians whereever they come from understand this and no only taking in immigrants from England as would be Leafless' preference is no guarantee of anything other then him thinking it will bring more people who think like him and will allow him to be privileged. Canadian Immigration Policy has been very lax as to expressing what we expect from prospective Canadians simply because we have no vision and we certainly won't create one with Leafless whose idea of a culture is to define what a culture isn't. That is precisely why Canada is at a loss to present a vision. It has the Leafless' to tell us what we are not and until we define what we are and what we want to be people like Leafless will continue to spread intolerance under the guise of feigned cultural concern. You will hear two phenomena that often get misappropriated by racists to try justify their hatred of people they consider non white. The first is the kind of talk that comes from economic migrants that came to Canada from poor countries to work as cheap labour. Yes if you hear them talk there is a tone of resentment they had to come here and it sounds they do not appreciate Canada and are complaining. You have to listen more carefully. It sounds that way but they don't hate or resent Canada, they simply lament the fact they can't go back and are homesick. First generations are like that. But look at their children. Their children are Canadian and they know that and they appreciate their children are safe and have opprtunities they do not have. The second is talk from a minority of fundamentalists and militants who come hear and suck the country for all its worth and spit in its face. For those of us who are born here, we do not know the difference between a tired cheap labourer who is homesick or a genuinely grateful immigrant or refugee from this militant. We can't tell the difference, particularly with Muslims where the press tells us every day about the terrorist Muslims but there are no stories on the good boring Muslims of Canada no different then you or me. You know how it is-we focus on that lousy, hateful, minority of a minority and let them dominate our attention and poison our minds into believing all immigrants are like them. The typical immigrant is happy to be here, is hard working and unlike Canadians born here who complain and insult their country and take it for granted, they do not. Do I think Muslims can opt out of our family laws for Sharia law. Of course not and neither do the majority of Muslims just as the majority of Jews do not want to opt out of the family law system. Of course we all have to follow the same laws. A country can't work otherwise. There is nothing at all racist about you bring that up and most immigrants would fully understand what you are saying. I personally believe, and this is why I am fundamentally opposed to the Leafless' of the world, that the way to assure we all follow the same laws, is to make sure our governments and laws do not try impose on person's religion or culture on another. I believe religion must be kept seperate from the state precisely because people should not be able to use their culture or religion to opt out of what they don't like and then try impose it on others. What Leafless is about is not equality-its about preferential treatment for himself and protecting his own self-interests by excluding anyone he does not approve of. It is about Leafless wanting to build an Aryan race of Leaflesses. He doesn't want to seperate church from state he in fact wants to impose his religious beliefs on others. To me there is no difference beteen him and the Muslim Clerics in Iran or any other facist. The only difference is he thinks he is different. He's just as intolerant. The way to define what Canada is and to get it across, is to start defining what we are not what we are not. There is nothing wrong with saying, Canada stands for things. What I am saying is Canada doesn't have to stand for the things Leafless wants to be Canada. He does not have an exclusive monopoly on truth, religion or anything else. He is but one bitter angry man and if he wants everyone to think like him, then run for office and get people to vote for him. I would suggest if he runs for the KKK or Aryan Brotherhood or Christian Heritage party he won't get any votes and he knows this and his anger is based on the fact that is knows he is a fading dinosaur who can't go back to the era when blacks were called negroes and shined his shoes and Jews were not allowed on Toronto Beach and if you were Irish you had better not think of anything but police or fire services and where Chinese nad Siekhs built the railroad but were not considered citizens and while we are it it, thoese were the good old days right Leafless-no Muslims, the Japanese placed in camps-I mean we knew what things stood for. Good old McKenzie King warned Canada he would never take in Jews as refugees and referred to us as vermin. Ah the good old days. Then someone encouraged Jamaicans to come here to be our nannies and before you knew it-it was all down hill. People started to dance with rythm and put spice in their foods. And now these pesky native peoples want to be treated as if they were human beings. Where will it end Leafless. Next someone will say God is universal and loves us all and does not favour anyone. Ooops Bob Marley already said that. Good thing he is dead besides he was only Jamaican and he wouldn't qualify under the Leafless Immigration policy. His skin was too dark even though his was mulatto. He also had dreadlocks. That is a no no in Canada. It endangers our culture. It encourages people to look too African even the caucasian wannabees.

"It's politically incorrect to be proud of your heritage if it's from European White blood, when is the last time a poster saw a Scotish kiosk at a multi-cult event? An English one an Irish one, nope we aren't even allowed to participate in the left's social experiment of Mulit-cult events but we pay for it. It appears to me that only non-whites are allowed to be proud of their heritage and get tax dollars to fund multi-cult events. " Sorry but what a stupid thing to say. There are hundreds of Irish and Scottish cultural groups full of Irish people and Sciotts proud of their heritage and who meet in public and this Jew has been welcomed at their cultural events with warm open arms and I absolutely love Gaelic culture and I most certainly know who Saint Andrew is and what a Presbyterian is and who invented golf. How dare you try misappropriate their pride of culture to try suggest that is why this line of posts were raised. By the way You really think Irish Catholics would come under Leafless' definition? Ask him and if you are dont' hold your breath. You think an atheist or agnostic of Liberal Christian Scott would come under his definition? You think one of those communist-socialist union supprting Scotts would come under his definition? You think soem of those mushy tolerant Liberal Presbyterians who love their fellow non Christians would come under his definition and opened their hearts to me would qualify? Hah. In fact me and many minorities consider the Scotts and Irish as role models of how the rest of us can be proud of our own cultures. Its precisely because of their love of history and their folklore and their music that we try learn the same and take pride in our own. This is not a competition. It is not a pissing match. This series of posts was not started to cherish and speak of the joy of Scottish and Irish culture. It does anything but that. It is about using couched and code words to say it is acceptable to hate others and make negative generalizations about them that suggest they are inferior, and not loyal to Canada. The Scotts and Irish I know stand tall and proud and expect me to do the same and no they have never once questioned my love or loyalty to this country and my father fought side by side with them in the air force and army. The post Leafless started is not about pride of culture it is about being angry and resentful at others for having their own culture-don't get suckered into this head space. If you really are proud to be a Scott or Irish person do you really think this Jew sits around with Jamaicans and Muslims conspiring to prevent you from having historic or cultural associations or churches? I am part of are inter-cultural and inyter-faith associations where Scotts and Irish and English heritage people lead the way opening their culture and traditions up for others to share and so we do the same vice versa precisely because they know exactly who they are and what they stand for and they serve as role models of positive behaviour not negative behaviour. Now tell us how does it appear to you only non whites are allowed to be proud? Just who is it not allowing this? Do you really believe there are people doing that or what you really mean is you feel to frightened to state who you are. Are you really frightened of blacks ridiculing you if you take pride in your culture? You really think someone of West Indian heritage at Caribana would hate you for having a parade? Got news for you the Jamaicans would be the first there partying with you. You think Bob Marley's culture is about hating anyone? Come on. Do you think some young black guy will beat you up? You really think some crazed Jewish zealout will attack you? You think some Muslim will tell you to stop? Yes Gays have their pride day and the Caribean peoples have Caribana but have you ever heard of St. Pat's day? My God man, even this Jew has cedlebrated it and was allowed to tell people for that day he was Irish not withstanding the obvious Jeiwsh last name I do have red hair and freckles and know what Guiness is and what blarney means. Get real. I also challenge you to come on this post and produce a government policy or a policy from any of the groups you seem to mention that indiocates they lobby and try forbid and get the government to disallow Scotts or Irish to take pride in themselves and celebrate their culture. Don't let this man's coded buzz words lower you to such purile hatred. These minorities he excludes do not want Scotts or Irish or anyone else treated in an inferior manner. This Jew who is writing this post to you openly shares Irish and Scott culture and English culture and is bloody well happy he can. It is these groups whose forefathers established a way of government that enables me to live for the first time in my line of family without being massacered. You think as a Jew I do not learn and appreciate the history of the people who enabled me to live this way!!!!? You think my father fought side by side with such men because he is not loyal and patriotic and taught me to be the same way? It is also precisely the reason I defer back to the native peoples. I thank them for showing and teaching me their culture and I am grateful ti share the earth with them because very few people have done that with my people genuinely as did the aboriginals. I learn from as many cultures as I can and so do the vast majority of us. My God man, stand up straight and be proud if you are really a Scott or Irish person. Did it not dawn on you you could be a positive role model for those of us who are not if you show some pride in yourself and share it? Be proud of who you are and share it and I will be the first to respect you. You are not a victim. Stop it. Be proud of who you are and I will most certainly admire you. A man who does not know what he is and so resents others for knowing who they are is doomed to try spread hatred and resentment in others. Stands up straight and learns to be proud what you see in the mirror. If the only way you can feel good about yourself is to feel bad about others, trust me I have seen it close up in my very face-it will rot your insides out and eat away at you. It is what turns some into terrorists. It alienates you because people don't hate you because of your culture, they are repulsed by you because of your own self-loathing. That is what you pick up on. They feel you hating yourself and they wish no part of it. Be proud and share it and you will be suprised how many strangers will embrace you.