xul

He said there were an anti-hatred law in Germany before ww2, and Hitler was baned writing by it for several months. In my dictionary,"free speech" is defined as "The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government." and the concept "opinion" is defined as:"A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof". "free speech" is a concept, it support "express any opinion" freely, not speak any insult or abuse freely. Anyone can express his opinion by a civilized way if he wants. But if you think speak freely is a good way, just do it. I have declared that I don't care any literal insulte to me. I just said some people wouldn't think like me. I'm sure you must agree those law did not write by me. You have the right to say you didn't want more Chinese here. And if most of Canadian agreed you, you would ask Canada government to do what you said. You mixd the concept of "supremacists" and "anti-immigrants". Though some supremacists have an aspect of anti-immigrants, but not any person who anti-immigrants are supremacists. If I tryed to immigrate to a very poor village to be a farmer in China, these villager would also be against my action, because their farmland has already been shortage. This don't mean they think they are superior than me. I have sort of tired someone likes to ask my private things in the debate. Hitler ever wrote a book too, and gained a huge remuneration, I guess. That don't mean he was right. You seemed to define "loser" as "people who are poor or do low paying jobs or do physical jobs". I think you would be wrong. Every occupation has its loser. Just as in sports, playing basketball have its winer and loser, playing football also have its winer and loser. But I didn't say all losers would be ricists. Most of them are not ricists but optimistical people. They learned more from the past and adjusted themslef to fit new circumstance. They may be the winer in the next games. But some of them did not want change. They just falled into constantly complaining and whining, and acted against something which was not the cause of their failure. This is not a good manner to face the challenge for themself sake. I'm wondering what kind of writer you are? A war fiction maker in the internet? I agree you have the right to think so and say so. But other Canadian also have the rights to not think so. So your government, the legal representative of Canada, must compromise all the idea of Canadian not only you. And if Canada still allow Chinese to immigrate Canada, I also have the right according Canadian law to apply my application immigrating Canada. I did not ask you doing something, such as tolerance. I just said I and some Canadian have the virtue of tolerance even facing insult. I am just expressing my opinion, free speech . I have the right even if I'm a foreigner or would-be immigrant.

I think I did not express my opinion clearly. Racism is an idea in some people's mind, so people can not ban an idea in a man's mind. I also agree with you and Jefferinah, people have their right to express idea even if they would be considered wrong by common knowledge. For instance, there is a white guy thinks every white guys superior than every Negro by gene or an Anglo guy thinks Anglo bloodline superior a Italian bloodline because in scientific and technology fields British is more advantage than Italy now. Perhaps we may consider he was a ricist but I don't think that ban of his speech is a good idea. Argue with him and tell him there are a lot of Aferican American or Canadian who have become Scientists, professors and politicians and early scientists who founded morden science and technology such Galileo they are Italian or Spaish nor British. But I think law should act against those guys who express their idea by insulting or abusing ways. I think what is the intent of "free speech"? It is not because God fixed a mouth on our face so we must let it speak freely by any way like a monkey. I think it is becacuse any one have the right to express his idea to others or use his idea to affect others. But by which way we can affect others efficiently? Insulting and Abusing can not help them to express their opinion and made others agree with them even if they were correct. Just as thatlaws ban spanking don't mean senators banning us to instruct our kids. Perhaps someone may say spanking is violence. But if a dad change his way from spanking from insulting and abusing his rebellious son for the kids good, do we think his way is correct and serve his purpose efficiently? Spanking ban surely makes those spanking dads inconvenience temporarily. But it also helps them to try to find an efficient way to teach their kid and finally they will gain greater from this ban.

Such allergic actions are partly caused by insecurity. They feel insecurity because they are minority. Not only immigrants have this problem. How do you comprehend the Quebec separatism? If those French lived in Europe were trying to unit Europe together, they would not be trying to separate from Canada. They want to separate from Canada because their population is far less than those English speaking Canadian, so they have some kind of insecurity, especially in fact there are some Anglo-Saxon supremacists in Canada. If the population in Quebic far more than English speaking area, I guess most Aglo supremacists will become separatists too because they also fear French supremacists. This is why Mr. Harper or other Canadian political party politicians visited a Hindu temple and prised their "faith". I think they were doing a good job because these actions let minority feeling Canada government and majority treat them as equal. So they will more easily get ride of the minority racism and accommodate into Canada. Whether some Canadian like "multiculturalism", the fact is Canada was founded by multiculture because there were British, French and native Indian in the early days, then came other European, African and then Asian and now Arabian. Risking of raising race conflicts is not funny to Canada. According to our historic knowledge, there were no evidence that the pure British blood people would be more loyalty Canada than other minority. In 1770s, It was those French Canadian kept their words of loyalty to British but those 13 British colonies rebeled and, citing an American's words, "kicked British's Kings' ass" for their interests. A few weeks ago, my cousin's daughter came Beijing for a tour. She came to Canada with her parents when she was 7 and now she is a Canadian Citizen. She can speak Chinese but can not read Chinese words even a map or a bus stop sign. Her boyfriend is a white boy and she told me she used to mix with Canadian born students in college far more than those international student from China because she has different living experience and less common interests with them. The same thing happened in my classmate's childrenhe that he told me about this then he came to China last year. On my impression, "modern" supremacism is a entirely different thing from old supremacism. In 1770s, those white guys such as George Washington were really white supremacists because they entirely neglected those black slaves were humanbeing too when they rebeled their king by the cause of "everyone are equal". But I'm not condemn them because in that time, white guys really "superior" than other nations, not based on gene but on their scientific knowledge. But today's supremacists or racists, not only white guys but also others have these problem, they are just losers of economic competition. Most of Nazis were not millionaires, the skinheads in Russia are the unemployed guys of market economy and those so-called "supremacists" in Europe and North America are only those victims of globalization. So I don't think the ban of racism can put the end to this kind of "racism" because it is really not racism. But ban of race insulting can prevent other race misunderstanding they are racists and taking revenge of using racism against "racism" and finally raising real racism. This is why I support some kind of ban of racism and supremacism.

This is an ancient way. I think people would find some better way to deal with such problem. I saw several cases of those low educated people solving their problem by this way when I was a kid, really disgusting. I think Canada rarely have people using this way, so you have no sense how it works and think this way is better. I'm not sure I have expressed my mean clearly. I means those guys are racist, they act against MilkDavid because he have a white skin. So this is a race hatred case. I don't think so. Just as most west doctor said eating Chinese food are harmful for health. It just an opinion, not an offese, though if it was truth, China would have far less than a billian people. But if anyone said "homosexual are pigs", he would have more chance to be called to a court. It is the court which decides what kind of expression commits hatred, not the person who charges. I really don't think MikeDavid insulted me. I may describe his way as arrogant but not insulting.

I mean if Jews are not the cause of the rousing of hatred at that time, immigrants are also not the cause of rousing modern hatred. Hatred usually are caused by economic frustration. Naturally the numbers of skinheads in a country always proportion with its economic condition. But if we allow those politician or clergy useing hatred or racism as their weapon to gain their political interests, I don't think history will not repeat again. Really? In old time, Jews did nothing but was genocided in concentration camps. Now there did have AQ make some attacks and killed thousands of civilian in a lot of country,but have you seen there are any governments genociding innocent Muslim? This part of history I did not know. But I think if they had the law as we have today, they might stop him.

If one of your friend visited your home and his 2 years old kid broke a teacup or something but his didn't know(perhaps he was in the bathroom) , might you ask him to pay it? But if there is a guy, he ask his friend pay the teacup, do we have right to deny his right because the teacup was bought from a one dollar strore?

I agree law is not perfect. It just a rule for the game of big girls and boys elder than a certain age. Such as the rule of basketball, it makes for those taller guys but against those shorter guys. Its function is just to keep everything in order. Laws are not writen by government. In your country, laws are writen by legislature, a legal representative of your people. In the past, several hundreds years ago, laws did not rule trivial things such as insult. Instead of suing in a court, people usually useing swords or a handgun shoot each other to solve such problem. Using law to rule such problem is a modern way. I think the divarication between us is: you interpret "free speech" as "a person have the right to express his opinion with saying anything by anyway except advocating voilence.", but I interpret "free speech" as " a person have the right to express his opinion by the way without insulating others". This principle does not suit all cases. At least there was one guy said Israel needs a conclusive victory by War and treats Arabian as immigrants. Obviously war is a kind of violence, but do you think he was commiting crime? I don't think so. I just think he was just expressing his opinion, from his view or Israeli view. So the judgement of a expression whether commits insult is not depend on what it was said but by which way it was said. They are different, just as a driver neglects a traffic sign than a terrorist knocks down a skyscraper. But laws rule both of them. I have said as a individual, I aggree with you. But if I was a lawmaker, I had to make those anti-hatred laws because it is not everyone thought as us. Those guys having no torlerance to insult also have their rights. If we allow hatred to be led to a race or a group people, it may poison whole country or nation. Iraq is a sample. Anti-hatred law does not merely act against the white or majority racists, it can also act against minority racism. Just suppose, those MilkDavid said was truth. There was a company, in a department the manager and most menbers are "minority" and coincidentally those guys all are anti-white racist. So they bond together to boycott MilkDavid. Why wouldn't he have the right to use law against these guys without resign for a new job?

If a neo-nazi was not in Canada but in some countries he could also yell "destroy Israel" or "Jews are Satan" without being punished by anti-hatred law. See, teacher rules in a school and law rules in a country. A school with a such teacher is a good school and a country with a such law is a civilized country. On the contrary, a school with teacher let his pupils "speeching free" to insult others is a bad school and a country let hatred speech free is an uncivilized country. I think it depend on how we interpret the word "sin". My dictionary's explaination is"A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate" or "Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God", so what you said is fact, not insult. If you interested in discussing the fault of China, you could go "The Rest of the World " board and I would be very willing to tell you a lot of faults of China, honestly.

So the hatred to Jews in Europe before WW2 was caused of Jews not Nazi and their supporters? Because of Jews are immigrants, their ancestor lived in Mideast, not in Europe. So they were the cause of rousing hatred? The anti-hatred laws are far more severe in Europe now, because there were a lot of hatred and European people and politicians has learned a lot from their history. Hitler was in jail because of Beer Hall Putsch, not because of he advocating hatred. I have never heard there were an anti-hatred law in Germany at that time. In fact, he decided to use hatred as a tool to gain his politic interests when he was in the jail. He wrote his book "Adolf Hitler- Mein Kampf" in the jail.

I guess everyone who graduated from a middle school konw the different meaning between "insult", "offend" and "believing in something and express the believing", so a judge also knows how to distinguish them. The essential difference in the argument is not people who should be how to deal with insult, but the action of laws. The essential action of laws is to keep everything in order. Such as a teacher instructs a classroom discussion. Telling his pupils what can say or what cannot say is not a good way, but telling a kid how to express his opinion by correct way is his duty. So the anti-hatred law works just like this teacher. It is not a ban to "free speech", is just a ban that act against people express their opinion by an insulting or "speech free" way. Some times these laws may make us uncomfortable or inconvenient, but sometimes they also protect us from being hurt.

Not all hurts can be accounted by how much dollars it is. For example, the anti-spanking law, a judge can not account the hurts that a dad inflict on his rebellious son. But the hurt is the fact though we can not count it by numbers. Insult someone can inflict hurt on him, mentally, this is fact. So law supports the punishment to insulter, not only Canada but also most country in the world support people charger their insulters. In other words, all of us are poor kids of law---so we must preper to be spanking by law for our fault all the time.

As an individual, morally I agree with you. But if I was a law maker, I should support what I said before. Laws are not always according with our moral criterian. For example, a boy kicked a ball at his neighbour's window and broke the glass. Usually the neighbour would not ask his family to pay for the event because the loss is small and he is a kid. But if the neighbour asked the boy's family to pay the loss, law had to support him because no one can deny his rights to ask someone to pay for hurting him even the loss is small. You feel the anti-hatred law is silly because you are in Canada and there actually is not a lot of hatred here(because of the efforts of anti-hatred law?) so you feel safe. But just imagine, if you were in Germany before WW2 and even before Hitler came into power. But there were a lot of losers "speeched freely" to express hatred in the street(because there was no internet to facility spreading hatred at that time) everyday. Did you still think that a anti-hated law, if there were a "left wing politician" trying to make it, is funny? By the way, I have never thought some words MilkDavid said to me commiting insult. I thought he was only sort of....not understanding:P. But "not understanding" is not funny too. According our historical knowledge, sometimes "not understanding" is just the soil which breeds hatred.

Perhaps we can distinguish them just as we distinguish "overspeed" from "driving free". There is not a absolutely right of "free speech". If a person insult another person orally in a street, he will not use "free speech" as his plea when he was charge in a court, because in front of his "free speech" , others could not defend themself by lowering themself to "equal" to him. If laws admit such kind of "free speech", it will actually make those noble men not equal to those mean men. Just as if laws allow the right of someone "driving free" by overspeeding, it will actually deprive the right of others "safe driving". In my opinion, someone commits "promoting hatred" because he confuses the difference between an individual and a group of people. For instance, if I come to Canada and a thief steals my money from my pocket, then I post in a Chinese forum:"There is a thief in Canada." What I did is not wrong. If I say"there are a lot of thieves in Canada", it is wrong but not a promoting of hatred. But if I say"all Canadian are thief", I believe any Canadian can charge me in a court for promoting hatred or insult even it is a Chinese court and judge will support him. There is not an absolute criterian to distinguish "promoting hatred" from "free speech". The speed limits of a road usually depends on how much the wide it is. The criterian between "promoting hated" from "free speech" depends on how tolerance a society has. Please allow me to make a joke at MikeD: If every people in Canada like me, he will have more space to "free speech" in real world though he believes I'm the worst one who could be allowed to immigrate to Canada.

I had never imagined an Israeli can be a nazi before I read the story. Is the world going to mad? Israeli police arrest neo-Nazi gang members

Europe also has the same problem. Usually, doing something the efficiency of a government is lower than a private company, because a government policy must pursue "equal" or "fair". So sometimes it is not "equal" or "fair" to some people as it would be.

Yor have asked me about my private information several times. I didn't answer your question partially because of your manner, and partially becacue I were not sure discussing such issue whether according with the subject of this"Canadan Politics" forum. But now I think I can consider this issue as a kind of background or reference information for peoples here when they discuss Canadia immigrantioin policy, though I don't think I'm a typical immigrant to come Canada. So I am going to answer your all of your concern honestly. At one point you were right. I am elder. I'm 43 and my wife 42. We have a five years old son. I'm a mechanical engineer with bachelor degree and my wife is a software engineer with master degree. Now we are working in a institute of China aerospace industry though both of us do not work on any rockets and spacecraft research. We just work on ground vehicles so it is not secret enough to avoid my immigration to a foreign country. I have about US$400,000 assets. Perhaps this is not good to a Canadian who have the same age with me, but this is enough to guarantee my family's sustenance in the first several years when we immigrate to Canada. On my observation, the first two or three years is very important to a immigrant because industrial standards are usually different between two countries. An engineer or technician needs time to relearn his knowlege to accord to Canadian industrial standards. If a immigrant family coming from non-English speaking nation have not enough money to support their living, they will have to do some low paying job to support their family so they will have less time to improve their speciality according to Canadian criterian. I don't thike I can find the same job in Canada as I did in China because the countries are difference. But I also don't care work from a small Canadian company in a small town. I don't know which kind of immigrants you work with. But one my cousin came Canada 10 years ago, in Toronto, he is a engineer on IT and gain $80,000 a year. One my classmate in university, he is in Toronto too, he came Canada 7 years ago and his family income is about $70,000 a year. I'm not sure but in a Chinese immigrants forum I often visited, most guys came to Canada longer than 3 years said they can gain $30 to $40 thousands a year per family. Those Chinses doing low paying jobs usually came from Chinese small town(in China, the cost of living in a small town far more cheap than big city, but the income also far less than big city, so they can not have enough money to support their sustenance in Canada.) or low educated suburban peasants. They came Canada as relative immigrants. Canadian welfare policy does not treat same to each immigrants. For instance, if I come Canada when I am 45 and I retire in 65, I can only get a half annuity from Canadian government than those came before 25, because I pay less tax then them. So I must depend on my own money or must work hard to save more money in pensions. China is a developing country, people's economic state is very different between different area. In Beijing, my family income only can be considered as "middle class". But in some needy western province, a peasant one year income is less than the price of my son's toy. So there is not a "common motive" suiting all China immigrants. Some people lived in small town or suburban area come to Canada because they can not get a good income in their hometown. Middle class leave china because they concern China environmental devastation, or they disagree the way of Chinese education system(usually make kid spend more time in book and exam but less in practice), or they fear communists might deprive their assets by some Canadian way(tax more to them to fund those needy peasants), or they samplely hope have more children. Even corrupt communist officials also immigrate Canada, because they fear to be arrested. Last year, a corrupt communist banker Gao Shan, who robbed about $100 million from a China Bank he worked in a small town and immigrant to Canada. Now he is appealing to a Canada court to avoid being expeled by CIC. I don't think there are a lot of Chinese immigrants living on Canadian welfare without work. Most Chinese family used to both husband and wife work, so they family income is easly up than any welfare funding level. If you really believed that immigrants came to Canada only for her welfare, you would not need to condemn Canadian immigration policy again and again, you would just need to call followers acting against Canadian welfare system. So all immigrants, Chinese, Indo, Aferican,Muslim.... would disappear because there is no welfare for them and their only motive of coming Canada is for her welfare----according your theory.

In my opinion, one cause of the fact that Canadian pay more tax than other country's is that Canada has less population with large territory. For instance, Canada, America and China has similar territory but different population(Canada 32 million, American 295 million and China 1200 million). If each of these country's governments build a highway costing $10,000 million, Canadan government will tax Canadian 10000/32=$312.5, American 10000/295=$33.9 and Chinese 10000/1200=$8.3. This is why China can produce goods with very low cost.

American Venture Group is a private organization before Dec 7th, 1941. Mr.Claire L. Chennault was employed by Chinese government not American goverment at that time. In fact, American government tried to restrict his activity when Japanese protested. At last, American government adopted his action, after the Pearl Harbor Incident. I suggest you would read Nixon and Kissinger's memoirists. It is the fact that America was eager to deal with Mao at that time. China has herself problem. But Chinese faults can not counteract American faults. And Chinese pain can not relieve American pain. This is truth.

Yes, Uncle Sam did come to China during WW2 to help us fighting Japanese. In addition, around recently 30 years, Uncle Sam also help us well both in economy and technology. He also help us to contact and understand the value and idea of West such as democracy and freedom. We will be gratitude for all of these forever. But from another point of view, would you really think China doing nothing for America? In WW2 there were millions of Japanese in China, that means they could not go to other part of the world to fight against American. American government did not help China defence Manchuria even did not help Chinese government to defence Nanjing, the capital of China in that time, when 200 thousand civilians were killed there by Japanese army. It was Stalin who sent airplanes and pilots to help China defence Japanese because he worried Japanese would attack Siberia from China. American came to China after Dec 7th, 1941, Japanese attacked American fleet and army in Hawaii and Philippine when the war between China and Japan had lasted 5 years. We were helping each other, not only America helped China. Though I agree America help China more than China help to America. I have mentioned above the help from America to China recent years. But China also helps American a lot. Why did Nixon come to China? Do you think this American anti-communism veteran came to China to charity Chairman Mao, the extreme left-wing communist leader in that time? The event happened during the cold war, then America needed China help to prevent Soviet Union especially America failed and withdrew from Vietnam in that time. Perhaps some American would say:"China must buy our CPU because there is not another supplier available." That's right. But with out China, these guys must pay more money for their "Made in Canada" keybord rather than their "Made in America" CPU. Though, China needs America more than America needs China. But some times this means nothing. Just imagine, America makes a war with China for Taiwan, turely America has the ability fanally defeating China, perhaps far hard than America defeat militants in Iraq. But meanwhile we fight each other, Russian will rule Europe, Iran will rule mideast, who know who will rule Africa....America will get a burned Island with its 200 milion refugee with nothing, just as British won the war to Germany, but lost the world to America. Both of us will lose. This is why Chairman Hu can bear Taiwan separatist leader Chen's provocation and President Bush will to help him suppress Chen taking the plunge. The world needs America, but America also needs the world. If some American think only the world needs America but they do not need the help of others in the world, why they go to Iraq to shed American boys blood? They can just do like the ancient Chinese emperors, build a Great Wall enclosing America border and living along. As a foreigner, I can tell American, we respect America not because American always according with their presidents, just like what always happens in DPRK now and had ever happened in China when I was a kid, but because some American have the courage to criticize their president's fault even their own country's fault.

Even if there were only one soldier, he must not stop fighting----sounds like Chairman Mao tought Chinese soldier when I was a kid. Don't worry. At one point I agree with you: The next president will still be an American, so he/she will still send American troops to Iraq because he/she will still have no policy to end the war without leaving Iraqi oil to Iran or AQ. One hundred years ago Uncle Sam did send gunboats and soldiers to China to blackmail ransom. But he has no longer had the ability to do so now, though he still has the ability to do the same thing to some small country like Iraq. We like him now because he come to China with a civilized way.

Yes....just as Bush adminstration had a problem of deploying a lot of troops in Iraq while Bin Ladin is at large in Afghanistan and laughs in their face by telling American they should convert to Islam if they want the war in Iraq to end in a vedio type. By the way, why would you think I was the representative of Chinese government? I guess Chinese chairman Hu, Russian president Putin and French president Nicolas Sarkozy will more like a American president who will continue the war in Iraq because when America exhausts her strength in the war of Iraq, they will have more chance to deal with their own business freely and get rid of the interference from Uncle Sam.

Yes.....and Bush administration's fault is they like more flattery rather than honesty, so they always get such "information" from their "friends" which made them comfortable temporarily but eventually led them to failure.

Without those restriction, Israel can win a conclusive military victory. But in political aspect, considering Israeli population less then Arabian, even if Israel defeated all Arabian country and occupied their territory, Israel would still not win. Just imagine, if population of North was less than South, though North could gain a military victory, but Lincoln could not win. Tht South could still reach their goal by waiting for the next federal election and vote him down. If Israel occupied all Arabian country, how would Israeli treat those Arabian? If Israel treated them as Israeli citizen just as American treated American Indian as American citizen, they would elect a Arabian president for Israeli. If Israel denied their political rights just as white guys ruled South Aferica, Israeli would be isolated by international community just as South Aferica had ever been.

I guess our dear communist leader's Mideast Policy is no policy but oil, just like Walmart. So they seems success at present, just like Walmart.

I'm a Chinese and live in Beijing, China. I came here because I applied to imigrate to Canada. I want to get some understanding about Canada and Canadian. I just mean if People lived in North states and South state of America, both of them have the same culture and history, can not solve their divarication peacefully, we also can imagine how hard to make Israeli and Palestinian, both of them were enemy each other in history for thousands years and the border of their country was defined arbitrarily by UN, living in peace side by side. I think even Mr. Bush and most of those Americans who support Iraq war also have a good willing. They believe they can establish democracy for Iraqi simply by knocking down Sadaam by war. They don't understand Sadaam or other dictators in some developing countries are only a historic figure in their certain historic stage. Just as Napoleon wanted to be a King of France rather than a governor of Republic. Being a king was not only the willing of him, but also the willing of a lot of Frenches lived in that time. So if Mr. Bush had a time tunnel and sent Amercian troop to defence the freedom of France, those American soldiers would find not only Napoleon but also a lot of Frenches against them. Peoples who believe they can expend democracy by war is just like those old time teacher who corrected their bully pupils by spanking them. Their purpose was right but their way was wrong. Spanking always lead children to more violent than reasonable. If any Americans have the willing to help developing country for the freedom and democracy, that's great. I just say, changing a regime is easy, but chaning a culture is not easy. So they must be patient, very patient. If majority of white American need a hundred years to understand that seating side by side with a black American in a cinema is harmless, Iraqi and Arabian learning how to use democracy to solve their internal conflicts perhaps needs more time.