carepov

This is indeed good news and shame on the media for not reporting it. This is not however a sign of media bias as provincial government policies have as much or more effect on poverty than the federal government. Also, poverty activist groups should be speaking out, congratulating government programs and policies that are working and pushing for more progress, perhaps with a focus on aboriginal children.

On what basis do you make that claim?

No one has suggested that European criticism of Israel is new. However this specific EU policy focussing specifically on settlement expansions looks new to me, as per the headline: "EU’s new policy on Israeli settlements: The full guidelines" http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.536155" also: http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/EU-officially-publishes-settlement-guidelines-despite-Israeli-objections-320384 The link you provided was from December 6, 2012. The article was about "sources" predicting that the new guidelines would not pass the EU vote. Well, it looks like the "sources" were wrong. Here are the new guidelines: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2013:205:0009:0011:EN:PDF This objective article is a view that I appreciate: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/opinion/global/the-eus-new-guidelines-on-israel-are-not-a-boycott.html?_r=0

Perhaps the targets are set based on achievements of investigators in previous years? Also, don't forget, there is an appeal process and I would assume that every investigator has a goal of 100% accurate and fair rulings, in other words a 0% rate for decisions overturned on appeal.

Well, the first sign that thereis a problem with fraud is that every investigator is expected to save $500,000 per year. "EI fraud threatens the effective operation of one of Canada 's most important social programs. Our investigations reveal that fraudulent claims result in approximately $142 million in EI overpayments and approximately $61 million in penalties on average each year." http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/fraud/fraud_serious.shtml "In 2011–12, the department processed 2.9 million claims and paid out $16.1-billion in benefits. While the government knows it overpaid $295-million, it also recognizes that it hasn’t yet identified all the mistaken payments. Estimating those could be worth as much as $578-million, the report found." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-needs-to-crack-down-harder-on-ei-fraud-auditor-general/article11629844/ Your turn: can you show me what evidence you have that setting targets for EI inspectors creates a serious problem for legitiamate EI claimants?

The thing is, most people, including men, have absolutely no say is establishing the laws and if you stand up against the government you're f...ed as per the source that I cited. There is no point is saying "men benefit from the laws" (which I disagree with anyways) when they have no power to change the laws. IMO, women's rights world-wide is one of the most important issues, if not the most important issue that needs improvement.

If only the most radical Muslim countries could model themselves after Turkey and perhaps Malaysia and Indonesia...

No, it is my opinion that the majority of men do not bennefit from the laws, and therefore have no advantage with the backwards laws. Most men would change the laws if they could. Violence of women is the most widespread abuse of human rights and it is not isolated to any one culture. The primary vicitms are of course women but they are not the only victims, all people suffer, especially children (boys and girls) and other relatives of the victims (men and women). My opinion is that most people, including most men are like us, they are looking out for the needs of their family and have no desire to hurt anyone.

The majority of men do not enjoy any such priviliges. They see their mothers, sisters and daughters suffereing and are powerless to stop it.

Yes. Not necessarily. What if the government also implemented a targets to discourage cutting off legitimate claims: -Target: no rejections of valid claims -Target: no appeals Good there is no problem yet. How long have these targets been in place? Well, this is a potential issue but for now it is mere speculation of a possible issue. And IF it does become an issue we will see a spike in the number of EI ruling appeals - not a huge deal - but we can react and adjust to the actual problem IF there is one. The REAL PROBLEM is fraudulent EI claims. Don't you agree that this is a serious problem? How would you address it?

Yes. When men or women criticize the government of UAE they face serious repercussions: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/life-uae-we-expect-anything-authorities-we-are-afraid-everything-2013-05-24

Yes, parts of their cultures are different from ours, but there are also similarities, I have to agree with The Squid: My guess is that most ordinary UAE residents are as outraged by the case as we are (if they even know about it), it's just that if they speak out against their leaders they face a risk of punishment.

Yes, it's part of their culture, it's looks like we are in full agrement. When you asked earlier: What point were you trying to make with this question?

Yes, but the key word in your first sentence is "part". I am not sure how the people of Dubai reacted. If you lived in the UAE, how would you react? http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/life-uae-we-expect-anything-authorities-we-are-afraid-everything-2013-05-24

No, I don't think so. Mo matter what system you have in place some legitimate applications will be denied and some fraudulent claims will slip through. IMO, the idea of setting targets will decrease fraudulent claims without significantly increasing the denial of legitimate ones. The EI fraud investigators are like parking meter monitors or traffic cops. With a target, there will be more tickets issued but no one that follows the rules should get a ticket. But if they do, the appeal process will ensure that justice is served.

That's my point. I am very sceptical that legitimate EI claimants are being penalized at all. Does anyone have any evidence of this?

I disagree. More interaction is the best hope to drive change and eventually bring an end to "barbaric practices" in these cultures. Yes, we need to expose all barbaric acts and demand justice and change but your rhetoric and suggestions make the situation worse. It is especially not helpful to name entire cultures as "barbaric" and "Paleolithic". When the West uses these kinds of words they are so easily used by theocratic leaders as justification for things like continued jihad and the silencing of any local progressive people.

No, by definition, quotas and targets are not the same. And you prove it when you say "there's a predetermined amount of rejections that needs to be met" - this implies that there is a quota. I am not so sure. I think that the government is setting targets and telling inspectors, if you do your best, then you should discover $500,000 worth of fraudulent claims per year. If an EI claimant is legitimate, my understanding is that there is no fighting with the EI: Dear Sir/Madam: -Here is my ROI for hours worked -Here is my termination notice -Here is a log of my job search -End of story, no? Also, don't forget that there is an appeal process, if a claimant is legitimate but denied EI due to some investigator trying to meet their target/quota a judge will overrule the decision.

First, in the CBC story and this discussion people are interchanging the word quota and target/goals. There is a subtle but important difference: "Quotas are rigid and exclusionary; they imply, "This is what you must achieve, no matter what." Goals are flexible and inclusive; they imply, "This is what we think you can achieve if you try your best." Goals are simply program objectives translated into numbers. They provide a target to strive for and a vehicle for measuring progress." http://hrweb.berkeley.edu/faq/1660 Is the government setting targets or quotas? Second, if a person is legitimately collecting EI and following the rules, they should have nothing to worry about, right?

OK, I hear what you're saying but disagree. First of all, the long-term stability and security of Afghanistan is in our own self-interest, therefore our job is to help with reconstruction as it is the only hope of long-term security and stability. Secondly, once our leaders promise and commit to reconstruct it becomes our job. I would also add that, whenever feasible, it is our job to help powerless people that are suffering.

Perhaps if we leave the country alone you may have a point. But after a country has been invaded and occupied, then don't you think it is the job of the invaders and occupiers to reconstruct the country?

I try to remain objective but if I had to pick a side I would be anti-Arab. I am definitely against the expansion of Jewish settlements so at first glance I favour this EU policy. Thanks for bringing this issue forward, I especially appreciate the Israeli media sources you link to.

AlienB, You wrong about trade. -Trade is not a zero sum game, it is win-win -Trade creates inter-dependancies between parties. This is excellent for at least two reasons. First it is more efficiecnt and allows for specialization. Secondly, it makes it much less likely for the two parties to fight violently or go to war. -Canada is not giving away anything. Try to find any OECD country that has been more successful economically in the last 25 years compared to Canada. -"It makes sense to buy what you can't make yourself." No, not if you can buy it from someone else cheaper and use the savings to produce something of greater value.

Do you have an explanation for the elements in Japanese culture that are blatantly sexist?

What you are not considering is: What are the costs of not going to war? -Needless to say, in WWII, the costs are immeasurable... -In Afghanistan, the costs of not going to war are nothing in comparison. One more or one less failed state in the world. A few more or a few less terrorists… Again, my opinion is that was that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified and that once the war started we needed to keep fighting until security was restored. Let's say we can go back to 2001 and select one of the following: a) Do things over more or less the same way as they actually happened b.) Invade Afghanistan and focus Western resources on quickly restoring security and helping to rebuild (do not invade Iraq) c) Do not invade Afghanistan If I understand you correctly, both of us would choose Option b.). If b.) was not available, and I could choose only between a) and c), I would choose c).