bk59

Leafless said there are no provinces that are officially English only. My link was just to show otherwise. While Ontario does extend some French language rights, the official Ontario website lists English as Ontario's official language. I don't really think that's out of context. English is still the only official language mentioned.

And this is why people keep saying that you can't judge the show because it hasn't aired yet. Because other people keep trying to judge an entire show based on a 30 second clip! You don't think it's adding anything to the thread, but then again, I don't think repeated attempts at saying an entire show - which no one has seen - is racist really adds anything either. Am I going to judge an entire show on one 30 second clip? No. Because one clip does not mean that the show is biased one way or another. There might be five scenes that we haven't seen yet that go the other way. So why judge right now when you can just wait a few days and see for yourself? Yes the show has a white guy who is intolerant of Muslims. It also apparently has a white guy (the Reverend) who is tolerant. Apparently it also has a Muslim character that isn't particularly tolerant of others. If there was no balance, and the only white people were all stereotypical rednecks then I could see a problem. But based on the character descriptions on the web site I don't see that being the case. Nevertheless, I'll wait until the show comes out before passing final judgment one way or the other.

Any grad could have done this job? First, for all we know, this was the only guy that applied that had sufficient credentials and experience. Second, I'm guessing that the average Canadian does not have a Bachelor's electrical engineering degree AND a Master's degree in biomedical engineering AND fifteen years of experience over a range of business areas (marketing, project management, etc.). If this person is using that experience and his or her education, then no, the average Canadian graduate cannot do that job. In fact, take out the word Canadian. The average graduate from anywhere cannot do that job because it seems to be fairly specialized.

Your viewpoint seems a bit extreme. You are basically judging the entire Muslim faith on the extremist views that we see from some Muslims. I have no doubt that this show could do some good (if done properly) to explain to non-Muslims that there are those who believe in Islam but do not believe in flying planes into buildings. Your post comes across as saying that Muslims who do not believe in the extremist position somehow do not understand what they believe. An analogy would be to say that a Christian wanted to make a show about how not all Christians believe that birth control is a sin or that homosexuality is a disease that can be cured. Your post would read as if you were telling that person that he or she doesn't understand their own religion because there are some people who do believe those things. Yet Christianity is a pretty big tent when you look at some of the beliefs that people hold. You do raise an interesting line of thinking though. If done well, this show might be able to not only give non-Muslims an insight into the Islamic faith, but also could show Muslims with more extreme viewpoints that there is more to the religion than violence. That's probably setting the bar a bit too high for a CBC comedy though.

That point would be silly and pedantic if not for the fact that other posters keep making the even sillier and even more pedantic comment that, based on 30 second clips, this show is racist, etc.

Uh wrong. But nice try. They have probably both changed their Web sites since my original post. The Internet is a fleeting creature... Actually Catchme is right. And wrong. Both websites described Ambrose as embattled in the two articles that you were comparing.

What's random is your cutoff point. Why stop at the first paragraph? Why not the fourth? In that case CTV has two negative comments about Ambrose versus CBC's one negative comment. How many examples should there be? I think I'll just use your answer when asked for a number... and that is to just say I'm not going to do that (post #103). To put it simply, I'm going to assume that you don't have the time to compile a statistically meaningful number of examples over a significant period of time. And I certainly don't have the time to check them. I already disagree with you on the one you provided since the article by CTV is clearly more negative in tone than the CBC one. (Again, this is relative... I don't think either article is particularly negative.)

Wow. So for that category of people - those who go to the trouble of typing in the CBC and CTV website addresses, but for some reason do not actually read anything once they get there - there may be an extremely small perception of bias? But we're not arguing about that category of people, are we? You are trying to show that CBC is pushing a political agenda. And for that you have to actually read what they write. You can't just take random samples and then proclaim that you have proven your point. After reading the whole articles, do you still think the CTV article is more positive toward Harper and his party than the CBC article?

If your example had any weight to it you could find some way of showing us the material you find offensive. As you pointed out earlier, don't expect others to do your work for you. OK. First, you can't directly compare "embattled" with "widely anticipated" in the way that you do because they are adjectives referring to two different things (Ambrose versus the cabinet shuffle). However, when only reading the first sentence the CTV article has a neutral statement versus the CBC's putting up the speculation about Ambrose first. So if you stopped reading there it would seem that you have a point. (A weak one in my opinion, but still, a point.) Now let's actually read the articles. When it comes to mentioning Ambrose & the environment file, what do they have to say? Article 1 (CBC): Article 2 (CTV): Also from Article 2: So let's see... both articles use "embattled" to describe Ambrose. So no bias either way there. The CBC article says Ambrose's performance was criticized. CTV says she was lambasted by the opposition and environmentalists. Which is more negative to Ambrose there? (Personally, I think lambasted is more negative.) CBC quotes Harper as saying the environment file is difficult. CTV has no Harper quote, but does indicate that it might be an election issue. Take the line about an election any way you want. The CTV then goes on to include a line about how some are suggesting that Ambrose was a victim of micromanagement by the Prime Minister's Office. That seems kind of negative to the Conservatives and Harper don't you think? Funny that CBC didn't bring that up. Finally CTV brings up Emerson, reminding everyone that he used to be a Liberal (before he crossed the floor at Harper's request). I think maybe you picked the wrong two articles to compare. When I read them I find the CTV article to be more critical overall of the Conservative government. Although to be fair, I don't think either article is biased.

There is a perfect example of why actual debate is so hard to find here. Person A says: This board would become a left wing love-in without a strong right voice. Person B says: This board would become a right wing love-in without a strong left voice. Then Person A demands that Person B must support their statement. What?!? How can someone demand that evidence be given when they did not provide any evidence for their own, equal, statement? Those are opinions, neither of which are going to be proven to the other person's satisfaction. I realize that this isn't partisanship, but it does show why real debate is hard to find.

Given some of the replies that posters put on here I can see why you would suspect someone of pulling your chain when they are just trying to have a real discussion. But here's the problem. No one can engage with this particular example. Thank you for identifying which episode you saw. But that doesn't really help if you can't show anyone what material you think is pushing a political agenda. Again, you can't just say "I saw something that proves my point, but I'm not going to show you what it was". All that does is turn any discussion into a game of who can get in the last word of "But I saw X therefore my point is right".

Find it if you want. I've given you more than enough information to find it if you really want to see it. If you expect somebody else to do the work for you, sorry... It aired in the lead-up to the election. I had the misfortune of watching the show that eveing and have never wasted my time since. That's why I didn't know it aired on Fridays. Actually, you haven't given enough information. You've stated that there was an episode of a show that aired sometime in the last week (more or less) of the last election that was an outrageous example of how the CBC was pushing a political agenda. Yet doing a general search online turned up nothing for me. I'm not asking you to do my work for me. I'm asking you to do your own work. I could sit here and say "Well I saw a number of episodes of The Hour during the last election that slammed the Liberals and praised the Conservatives." Or I could say that I saw an episode that showed conclusive proof of aliens landing in Ottawa and manipulating the results of the last election. Just saying this does not make it true, nor does it help the discussion in any way. If you can't provide any information other than "I watched this one show once and I thought it was pushing an agenda" then you aren't providing any meaningful proof of your point. All you are saying is that the CBC aired something that you didn't like. (Which by the way is a valid opinion, but not proof of any political agenda.) If this episode was as outrageous as you say, surely there must be some blog or article somewhere that mentions it. Surely you must be able to provide a quote from the show as an example of their bias. Not every statement made in a post needs to be referenced. But if you are going to expect people to look at a specific example in order to try and prove your point, then you have to do better than saying that you watched a show that proves your point. You have to show how it proves your point. Don't expect other people to do all the leg work to disprove it. Especially when you haven't given them anything to disprove. Or even talk about.

Fair enough. Typos (& mistakes) happen. But could you please provide more information? Any link to a discussion of the show, or a video clip or transcript, etc.?

There is no such thing as the provincial right of language control. Making up rights does not prove your argument. The provinces choose their official language(s) for themselves. The federal government chooses Canada's official languages. Your "fact" about Quebec and the World Wars has nothing to do with anything in this topic. The examples I gave indicate that your logic was flawed. National policies are set without having every province set the same policy. This includes the existence of the Canadian military, international treaties, etc. This is at least the third time I have had to correct your assumption that there are no provinces in Canada that are officially English only. Here is one example (Ontario): Once again you have avoided my question about how the Charter has given Aboriginal people an advantage. Please feel free to answer that question at any time.

This topic certainly has shifted. First there were hypocritical posts where people complained that a show (that no one has even seen yet) was stereotyping people while at the same time those people were stereotyping others. A defence seemed to be that CBC was publicly funded. Of course, that is no defence at all. The poster was still being hypocritical by complaining about something that the poster was actively doing themself. So now we're onto how the CBC is being funded by taxpayers to promote a political agenda. I have yet to see proof in this thread of a political agenda. Using Little Mosque on the Prairie as an example is ludicrous. It hasn't even aired yet. So who knows what it will be like. Perhaps my favourite example so far is this one: I (foolishly?) spent some time trying to find any reference to this particular episode. And what did I find? That January 20, 2006 was a Friday. And to my knowledge The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos has never aired on a Friday. Which may explain why my short search for information was so unsuccessful. I'll extend the benefit of the doubt and assume that there was a typo in the original post. Even if there wasn't & I just couldn't find any info, then I'm going to have to see some link or any other info before taking that example at face value.

What kind of answer is that? First, I never said that the Charter has taken away rights from anyone. So no, I'm not going to answer a question about a position I never took. My point about "established countries" (as you put it) was that if you are claiming that rights were taken away from English Canadians who were in an established country before the Charter, then how would you argue against a Native tribe that says they had land rights in their established society that were taken away from them? It seems like a poor answer to say that in one case the "established country" matters more than in the other case. That had nothing to do with the Charter. But that wasn't even my main question... Second, why haven't you answered my question? You claim that the Charter has given extra advantages to (among others) Aboriginal peoples. What advantages has the Charter given them? Ranting about giving Aboriginal people a nickel (without explaining how, why, etc.) is not an answer. Your post had nothing to do with the Charter.

What "interesting" logic. The federal government has declared English and French the official languages of Canada. But you say that isn't so because all of the provinces have not declared English and French official within their borders. By the same logic Canada has no army. Oh sure, the federal government has troops and weapons, but none of the provinces do therefore there is no such thing as a Canadian army. By the same logic Canada has never entered into an international treaty agreement. The federal government has made agreements with other countries, but none of the provinces have, therefore Canada has never made an agreement with another country. I would suggest learning a bit more about our system of government. The federal government can do (some) things at a national level without having the consent of every single province. Likewise, the provinces can do some things within their borders without the consent of the federal government. One of those things that the federal government can do is to declare English and French the official languages of Canada. And no. "Provinicial officialism" is not what matters when talking about "the grand scope of Canada." National issues involve the national (i.e. federal) government.

You forgot to mention the condescension of silver spoon socialists to redneck prairie hicks. But you made up for it by being condescending yourself. Good work sir! What does that one line mean? That is good work. You were able to completely ignore the fact that when complaining about western Canadians being stereotyped you were stereotyping people from the GTA. If you find that type of observation to be condescending on my part, then so be it. I never proclaimed that anyone was a redneck hick. The fact that some people in this world do believe in the redneck hick stereotype has nothing to do with the fact that you were complaining about stereotyping while you were stereotyping others. Should I have mentioned that? I don't think so. Any more than I would expect you to all of a sudden start talking about how some "redneck prairie hicks" are condescending to "silver spoon socialists". But I am impressed that once again you were able to introduce a new complaint - that I was being condescending - and then you turned around and were condescending yourself (i.e. "Good work, sir!"). The line you are asking about is just an indication of what I find amusing. Like the joke: Suzy and Bobby were in Sunday School when the teacher said, "It's time to pray now. Fold your hands and close your eyes." After the prayer was finished Suzy raised her hand and exclaimed to the teacher "Teacher! Bobby wasn't praying right! He didn't close his eyes!" The teacher looked at Suzy and said "But how do you know his eyes were open if you had your eyes closed?" The fact is you are labelling the CBC and GTA folk as producing a show that is making fun of western Canadians. You have based this opinion on only a few lines of dialogue. You have not seen an episode. You have not looked at the other (limited) dialogue available that makes fun of other people in the show. You have jumped to a conclusion that cannot be justified on the available material. And the whole time you are doing this, you are doing the exact thing that you are complaining about - stereotyping others. At the end of the day, you might be right about this show. But right now we don't know because the show hasn't aired yet.

In some ways you are right, we are already making choices regarding aborting pregnancies. I remember reading a while ago that people were worried that in China couples would start aborting pregnancies based on the sex of the child. This extends to other potential developmental problems as indicated in your friend's case. And yes, it would be complicated to adjust this technique from sheep to humans. But this is where all of the real leg work is being done. Once they can do it to sheep, it isn't that hard to do it to humans. Don't get me wrong, it would be hard - but not as hard as you would think. Once you know you can do it to one mammal, it can be done to another. I'm not really against the research. Even though I don't think gay sheep are really that big of a problem. But I do think there is a legitimate concern that this research could be the basis for applying this to humans. Unfortunately that concern needs to be addressed by the government, and governments are not always the quickest to grasp the consequences of new technologies.

Some people just see the letters CBC and assume that it must be part of some left wing propaganda campaign to mock western Canadians. Ignore the fact that the show hasn't even been aired yet. Ignore the fact that one line of dialogue has somehow been taken to represent the whole show. (Have you never seen a movie trailer on TV then went to see the movie and said "That wasn't what I expected based on the 30 second trailer"?) Ignore the fact that the show's website pokes fun at Muslims with lines like: "Muslims around the world are known for their sense of humour." "Desperate Housewives?! Why should they be desperate when they're only performing their natural womanly duties?" Or making fun of politicians: "The truth? I can work with the truth. But only as a last resort." Face it, it looks like the show will attempt to satirize everyone. Plus the hypocrisy in some of these posts is amazing. One line of dialogue apparently means that the show is portraying western Canadians as idiotic redneck hicks. But it's OK to say that people from Toronto are silver spoon socialists out of touch with the rest of Canada. Please feel free to continue stereotyping the CBC and people from the GTA. It makes it that much more amusing when you accuse others of the same behaviour based on almost no evidence.

From what I've seen of and read about this show it would appear that they poke fun at everyone involved. Muslims, non Muslims, caucasians, etc. So how is that a CBC left leaning bias whose sole purpose is to mock people from western Canada? To characterize the show as that (especially without seeing it) seems an overreaction. As for the niche that CBC is filling... do private networks show comedies? Yes. But how many of them are showing comedies that in any way mix comedy and satire with a Muslim community? Please let me know if there are any. This show looks like something that a private network wouldn't touch with a 10 ft pole. At least not until they see that it can be done without causing a huge controversy and damaging the network.

Problems such as the one you had with the security guards should be dealt with swiftly and harshly, no matter which language was ignored. (Assuming that they were in fact bilingual and just being d*cks to you.) But incidents like that aren't really the fault of federal bilingualism. It's just some idiots that need to be straightened out. You can find people like that everywhere. Unfortunately. Your comments regarding career advancement are more at the heart of the matter. I don't think that bilingualism is "highly" discriminatory against English speakers (meaning those with English as a first language). The fact is, we have two official languages. Even before the Official Languages Act there was a need for bilingualism in many areas. Those areas have just been expanded by the Act. But from everything that I have heard, the government and military are more than willing to give people the opportunity and training to learn the second official language (whether that be French or English). It is in the government's best interest to have (otherwise) qualified people meet the language requirement in the same way that it is in an employer's best interest to have (otherwise) qualified people learn computer skills for a job that requires computer skills.

That is an interesting position to take given your main argument. You say that the Charter gives advantages to groups like people from Quebec, homosexuals, and Aboriginal peoples. One of the reasons behind this statement is that the Charter has (somehow) taken away rights that people had in an established country / society. Wouldn't that reason work in favour of Native Canadians who are trying to get back some of the rights they had in their prior, existing established society? Even before you answer that one, please tell me what extra advantages the Charter has given Native Canadians. You've done your bit on Quebec & the French language. I've seen your previous threads on homosexuals. (Personally, I think you're in deep left field on both issues... in fact, it's possible that you're not even playing the same sport...) But now I'm curious to hear your viewpoint on Native Canadians.

Of course. How silly of Drea to say that English and French are the official languages of Canada. Official Languages Act

If you want to see why some people are worried about this, just look at paragraph three in the link provided in the original post: While I would guess that most of the researchers really are only concerned with sheep, there are people in this world who would love to see a technique used to eliminate homosexual traits in sheep modified to be used on humans. And that, I think, is troubling. After all, if the technique can be used on humans, with other modifications what other traits could it suppress?