Michael Hardner

Argus: I have debated with you here before, and though I completely disagree with your views, I do think they are based on some kind of principles. With that knowledge, I read this post: It's clear to me that you find isolationist communities abhorrent. You resent the fact that they don't adhere to Canadian values, whatever they may be. You use Muslims as an example, but since your complaint is with the idea of cultural isolationism, I can't take you to task for being anti-Muslim. But, I hope you won't' mind if I ask a few questions just to verify in my own mind that these ideas or sentiments are borne out of xenophobia. Cultural isolationism has been practiced by other groups in Canada long before 9-11. Orthodox Jews and Mennonites are two groups that come to mind. Both are religious communities where women hold a lower status than men. Would you consider them to be Canadian ? If so, then what is the difference ? I would say that you wouldn't based on your posts above. You could, I'm sure, come up with another set of principles that would further refine your views, and would separate Muslims from these two groups but I hope you don't. I'd also like to say that I see something positive in yours and Betsy's idea that there is something called a Canadian value. That is a point where I think right-and left- thinkers could agree on. Some have put forward that our constitution represents our values but I think a separate declaration could be a positive and unifying initiative. It wouldn't have to be legally binding, but it would be something that we could rally around to say 'yes, we have freedom of religion in Canada and yes, we protect your rights but this is what we're all about'.

I'd like to add that the practice of bringing attention to a single crime, committed by a member of a certain group, for the purpose of casting a shadow against that group is conniving, divisive and dishonest. You could apply that method to any member of any group and it would be wrong to do so in every case. If you want to show how lawless or bloody a group is, why not give us information about how that group behaves relative to other groups ? National crime statistics and incarceration rates, for example, might tell us something. If you did that, you'd probably find that African Americans are a group that deserves attention. 1990 incarceration rate for African Americans - 47% Example - Incarceration Rates in Oklahoma And in my experiences dealing with people who argue this way, you'd be hard-pressed to find these people have any kind of opinion on African Americans as a 'problem group'. Why is that ? I'm not sure but I'm guessing that these same people find such a tack offensive somehow. Maybe there's an implicit understanding on their part that there are a number of complex factors at part, so attributing blame to a group isn't appropriate. I say maybe because I'm not sure. But I don't understand at all why people like Jerry feel it's okay to tar all Muslims with the same brush based on single cases, or other anecdotal proof ( television coverage of protests overseas etc. ) when they seem to recognize that social problems related to other groups are complex.

I like your analogy. So much so, that I'd like to "step in" like a gentleman at the dance. Speculative investments may fail individually, but on the whole and in the long term they pay off, which is why people invest in them. Try another analogy here. The casino loses lots of individual bets, but wins in the long term. The economic benefits to Canada of immigration are clearly there (growth, lower labour costs) unless all of the governments of the last thirty years or so are grossly incompetent. Do you think the current administration will make a significant reduction ?

Clear: From my limited knowledge of what happened at that time, I know that the banking system was unstable and there were many failures, which lost many ordinary people their savings. The Federal Reserve System changed that.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I've lived among immigrants, and been an immigrant. What I'm saying about assimilation can be generally applied to cultures, and countries in different time periods. Look at the difference between the French / Quebecois, or differences between the states. Culture changes are like weather patterns moving over the country over decades and decades. Multiculturalism may prove to be a policy that eases assimilation and pot-melting, but I don't think it can stop it.

You are correct. But there hasn't been a policy to prevent people from retaining their own culture. Melting pot was a cultural norm but did it translate into any policy preventing culture from persisting ? I don't think it did. Immigrants just don't retain their own culture, when it mixes with other cultures. You're probably right. The Constitution strikes me, though, as being just part of the equation. It seems to draw lines to protect the individual but doesn't say something positive and unifying to us as a nation. Plus, you hate freedom right ?

If you take slavery out of the equation, it has been successful. The slavery issue is a special problem with the states that has never really been dealt with head on. And, as I said, melting pot does happen whether or not it's a policy. As far as I can tell, melting-pot is actually the absence of policies to accomodate cultural differences. What do you think ? A statement of what it means to be part of this collective called Canada might help. We have a declaration of individual rights, but what about our values ? I visited Western Canada for the first time this summer, and it was clear to me that hard work is one of the values they hold dear. Or we could just decide that a nation is an artificial and outdated construct.

I don't know if you can say it's an empty platitude, exactly. I do feel that way sometimes but if, in 20 years, Canada isn't experiencing strife such as France is then maybe we can say it was a success. Certainly immigrants I've spoken to seem to firmly believe that it's a Canadian value. Melting pot, though, will happen. Immigrants will not keep their culture over generations. But multicult might mitigate the pain of integration.

Most people wouldn't. Why ? Because what you say on these boards could stick to you. Your family, friends, employer could find out opinions that you keep secret. The good thing might be that it would force people to be responsible. Anonymous posters come on boards like this, and post anything at all without fear of being held to it. Interstingly, after somebody has been on a board for awhile they gain an identity that goes with their handle, and they tend to be more careful in what they say. Another good thing, would be that it's a more natural form of assembly. Tribal gatherings, and town halls were never anonymous. I'd be interested to hear about the other project. I've always wondered about the possibilities for a hybrid of live meetings and web board discussions.

Maybe a Charter of Responsibilities ? Expectations ? I don't know what the impact would be to the legal system but even a nicely worded statement could capture the public imagination as to what we're supposed to be doing here...

What is multi-culturalism ? It's an attitude, and it's a policy. The policy affects and is affected by immigration policies, education policies, and economic policies to name a few. When I read complaints about multicult, they usually mash it all together. I like the sentiment of the song, but it has served its purpose and it does make you reach for the dial when you hear it on the radio. If you look at the scale of conflict, and the politcal problems and costs of waging war, you'll see that there are less and less advantages to the military option. Also, war between nations depends on there being nations in the classic sense. With global investment, nations don't really exist in that way. The economic advantages of war are hard to justify if you already own big pieces of the other nation. Could there be a war between European nations today, for example ? The problem that you talk about are a result of large scale immigration. France doesn't have a policy of encouraging multiculturalism, as Canada does, and they're having the kinds of problems you're talking about. We have a new prime minister now. Do you think he will restrict immigration ? My guess is that the economics will dictate that things continue mostly on the same path as they have been.

I'm with Riverwest, and Hicksey to a lesser degree with regards to Clear's platform. Really, this system was what we had in the recent past. If it had worked, then we would still have it. In the 20th century, the economy grew and social pressures caused us to build a welfare state. In the 21st century, faith in these institutions is drifting. If you read the posts of right-of-centre people here, the biggest complaint is waste and abuse in the system. Perhaps our current PM has the will to revitalize our safety net so that broad based faith in the system is restored.

I don't understand. I asked a question, then you answered it. Thanks for educating me. I had no idea that there was a court case. I see. Well, I don't think that the courts would see it that way. I don't think the students can be expected to come home for prayer or to find some other place. I think that it's appropriate for the schools to allow this to happen so that these people can practice their religion. To me, "knowing it's there" isn't enough of an infringement on a non-Islamic's rights to stop these rooms from being used. First of all, you're incorrect in saying that it's my religion. I'm not Muslim. My comments weren't to my country, which is doing a pretty good job of accomodating people and allowing religious freedom, but to you who doesn't like the idea of your child fraternizing with Muslims. I don't see why you should be thanked for accomodating religious concerns, when you don't want to do that. You stated that you don't want your child to be exposed to potential future Islamists. Do you mean all Muslims ? Do you think Muslims should be allowed to attend public schools ? My advice is genuine. If you don't want your child to be near Muslims (it seems that way to me) then you need to home school your child.

Hicks: I have to tell you that I made an honest mistake in the calculations above.... I misread a table, so the numbers are wrong. I've spent an hour trying to find better numbers and have, so far, failed.

What's my religion ? Maybe you're mixing me up with another poster. It's immaterial to the argument. You should be able to make a point without having to comment on the person you're discussing with. I can discuss these things with you without knowing what your religion is. Aha ! Yes, you are correct. Your last paragraph is garbled there, but you say something about being exposed to a certain religion. A prayer room would only be used by people of the religion in question, so how would students be 'exposed' to it ? Then home school your child. I understand wanting to protect your children from 'the world' but they'll have to live in it sooner or later.

I don't think the famous UN study identified any sure "cause" for Global Warming. It's interesting, though, that until last year or so many on these boards and others were saying that there was no such thing happening. It's heartening that people seem to be finally agreeing that it is happening, even if the cause is still being investigated.

Check out this link: http://www.ncwcnbes.net/htmdocument/report...03/WI2003_e.pdf Welfare isn't that much more in the eastern provinces. Depending on how much you want to cut welfare, you wouldn't get a huge amount savings.

Well, there you go. Information illuminates. It also creates a hunger for more information. I don't know the answer to your question, but I did know somebody (Ontario) who couldn't work long hours due to a brain injury and was receiving welfare. Some of the welfare links I posted above do have that information but you have to dig to get it.

I see. Well, I don't blame you for getting started on the wrong foot. If the government stats were clearer, then we would have had a better idea from the start. This exercise that we went though, though, proves to me that more information can and does lead to better discussions with regards to government policies - in this case social spending. Therefore, I am sticking to my platform for better information as a means to better debate which leads to better policies. For my part, I was educated as to the level of employable welfare recipients out there (much higher than I thought) and the relatively large numbers of people receiving social assistance. 1.7M people is something like 5 % of the country. Whether you're left or right, you have to acknowledge that that is a huge waste. Any corrections or brickbats out there ? Send them this way.

The Lord's Prayer was dropped by schools without any kind of legal fight that I can remember. It's a bit of a stretch to say it was 'banned', but you can safely say that the Supremes would have struck down a challenge to allow it in public schools. Leafless wrote: Since religious freedom is a constitutionally protected right, government has a legal obligation to allow it. That also goes for other entities that operate in Canada. I don't think the government needs to 'recognize' any religion. It hasn't done that at any time in the past, and I don't think any statement of recognition would mean anything at all. I'm not surly, but I do jest from time to time. Not now, though. Besides, the jest you refer to was your own projection of my opinions, so... really.... you jest. Roger has been asking you when/how that happened and now I am asking you that too. Well, not exactly. Certain religions have requirements surrounding prayer and they have to be accomodated to a degree. It would be a distraction to have Muslims praying in a classroom, don't you think ? Or would you prefer that option ?

I have to say that the amount is more than I thought it would be, even if it works out to be .2%. You could probably reallocate resources to focus on getting people off welfare in a different way and achieve the same kinds of cuts. It would take a little more imagination but it could be done.

Some back-of-the-envelope calculations: Single employables make up from 20%-37% of receipients... Let's pick 33% http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/fs_ncwpl01.htm If we use 2003 figures and say there are about 1.8 M recipients in total.... http://www.ncwcnbes.net/htmdocument/princi...erwelfare_e.htm And they make an average of say $8000/yr... http://www.ncwcnbes.net/htmdocument/report...03/WI2003_e.pdf That gives us... 4.8 Billion paid out to employable people. If my math is right your cuts would amount to $800M. That's quite a bit more than I thought. But as a percentage of the federal budget, it comes out to .4%. If you include the budgets of the provinces, which I believe pay into that type of social assistance too, then it's much less.

A few problems: First of all, welfare payments are handed out locally (maybe provincially) out of a pool of money that dribbles down from various sources. How much does the federal government dole out towards welfare is the next question. If you know, please post that number. The final question is how many welfare recipients are able bodied, as a percentage. Your $32B savings figure is undoubtedly quite high.

Anybody who works for a large organization, who's had to cross only ONE line of operational chain-of-command knows how much it takes. A lot.

My mind is open to be changed but the answer to WHO can only be 'nobody' at this point. Lyndon Johnson tried to cross jurisdictional lines to change the name of a town to Cape Kennedy in the 1960s and it took a huge effort, which eventually was undone.