Michael Hardner

Ok, many thanks to the Globe and Mail for at least pointing to a source document, thank God. Apparently, this "news" has been out since January but since big media doesn't assign people to monitor the government, we have to wait until an interest group starts to squawk. Here is the item that's causing this to appear in the news - please refer to this in your arguments. It takes about 5 minutes to download: Ontario Curriculum for Health and Phys Ed - Grades 1 to 8 Although the group isn't making anything up, some of what they said (re: lubrication) can be misunderstood. Health education teaches students about their own bodies, and doesn't talk about external products or what have you. Here's a snippet:

You linked to the main page at CTV, not the article. And the article doesn't have any details on what is to be taught, but points to a controversy - which is what big media loves to do.

It's important to find out exactly what is being taught. Being taught sexual identity might mean something as basic as referring to same-sex-marriages when discussing families, or it might mean more.

We have also had people from Asia, Southern Europe, Ireland, the Carribean and Eastern Europe. Your assertions are conflict elsewhere is based on impressions, not on hard facts. Furthermore, such conflicts defy quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis has to include the possibility that there is bias. I would say that you're proposing a change in policy - treating certain groups differently than others. Therefore the onus is on you to defend such a change, i.e. to make a case for treating people differently, not on others to defend treating them as we have treated other groups. But you're not suggesting new rules for Poles - or are you ?

You have no evidence that said cultures will behave any differently than other cultures that have been assimilated. Other peoples have left cultures with different values and have assimilated so why are these people so different ? Are they biologically different ? I have continually asked for the reasons why this may be the case and I end up getting incorrect answers, or circular arguments.

That's one example of how an open society is stronger than a centrally planned and closed society.

To my mind, that incident is a reason to not have public investigations of the police. There was a a lot of second-guessing in the reporting.

I have already opined on that. Charest was trying to gain political points. There's no reason why you can't offer some accommodation to women who wish to wear religious garments.

Obviously if you are hate mongering, then insulting is implied. But the point is that insulting on its own isn't a crime.

Bone up on feminism, on men defining the beauty ideal and so on. That sounds good to me, for the most part.

I'm not talking about Canada, I'm talking about our civilization - the 'west' if you like - which includes the US.

The present civilization doesn't need to be 'preserved', it needs to evolve - or rather - to continue evolving as it did when it accepted Irish, Jews, Italians, and the latest wave of immigration. If you think that it needs to be preserved in glass, like a butterfly in ether, then you're missing the point. Albania had a strong belief in keeping outsiders away. They're still catching up.

It sounds like a lot, but expressed as a percentage it's not as evident. Tell me what you think 'by far' means as a percentage, and I would say that the estimates need to average to that amount.

Insulting a religion is free expression, and it will never be otherwise. Jerry uses incendiary language like 'one step closer to Sharia law' but it's a big nothing of course.

Such as the mini-skirt. Am I the only one who finds the new wave of Harper-era feminism a little strange ?

Yes, and to anyone who thought that 'Thought Police' were the exclusive fancy of the left...

That's a quote of the week.

Nixon ? Really ? Why do you say so ?

Western democracy became great by establishing a new set of rules: laws based on rights, meant to allow people to pursue their own dreams. Rather than being great by having a common thread of history and culture, the West became great by offering work and less meddling in individual affairs. Official multiculturalism provides a framework for races to engage with each other, but ultimately the cultures will melt together as Eyeball has pointed out. Multiculturalism doesn`t, IMO, invade all of our lives on a daily basis: we must still work together and engage with each other.

I think eyeball was just shrugging at the inevitability of it all, but maybe he can respond. I don`t feel racial pride, I don`t think, nor do I feel shame. I do hope for the continuance of the civilization, and the human race though.

So you provide evidence after 2 years, and my accusations are now baseless ? Nevertheless, thanks for providing some links.

Right. I retract that but it doesn`t change things much if we replace religion with `non-brown people` as eyeball asserted. Sounds like a good idea to me. It`s a mutation to imagine that we should worship the race (or religion - my assertion) of the people who established the United States, rather than marveling at the success of their ideas and their vision.

Our past is not just a museum of old faces, and the races and religions of our grandparents. They fought for an ideal that makes Canada a place to come to. How are we destroying the heritage that allowed people to immigrate ?

They very much mattered. They were builders and practitioners of a philosophy. They did not say `we are building this for the future people of our religion that will inherit it`.