JB Globe

It's a completely unrealistic demand - motivated no doubt by the fact that Abbas is being viewed more and more as a Western puppet, and is over-compensating by trying to (unsuccessfully) pander to a certain segment of the Palestinian population. But of course, we all do know that unrealistic demands, expectations, and policies which are destructive to the peace process abound on both sides from time to time in this conflict, right?

Hopefully they'd recognize that since we're all Canadians, we all participate and benefit from a system of government that has benefited from the exploitation and oppression of Canada's first peoples. Frankly, I think they would be more likely to finally push to resolve many of the outstanding issues since they wouldn't automatically link those issues to their cultural identity. ie - many white Canadians see the conflict as an "us vs them" conflict because they identify with the past actions of the white colonizers and politicians who did the deeds. Remove that emotional link and you can handle the issue in a stricly legal and political fashion. I think this is a good thing to get those issues finally resolved, rather than taking the approach that most federal and provincial governments do - which is to use every means to stall land claims settlements for as long as possible - which is why you have cases that have been going on for decades.

I'd bet good money that this never happened, and either you're lying or you read it on some amateur anti-imigration website and believed it. If you're going to insist that it did happen, you might want to actually find a respectable paper that covered the case and prove me wrong. I think, that such a case would've created a huge firestorm politically, it would have been a landmark legal case and it would've been included for instruction in legal schools across Canada. There is NO WAY, that someone can use the excuse of cultural-custom to do something like anally raping his under-age daughters, Especially since there isn't any such custom that exists in any society as a cultural norm. Criminal law trumps cultural-practicies that come into conflict with them, every time.

Well, this doesn't mean you're left OR right-wing, it just means you're for an equal marketplace for workers. Careful with the black and white generalizations. If you're gonna automatically lump racists in with Republicans, than you gotta automatically lump Stalin in with the NDP. So, you're not left-wing after all, I take it?

There's nothing that makes Jews laugh more than a Goi who is completely ignorant of Judaism save what he reads from conservative newsources, trying to be our best friend. Well, that pretty much illustrates your total ignorance about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It would still seem ridiculous even if I WEREN'T reading Thomas Friedman's "From Beruit to Jerusalem" right now. I've said it before and I'll say it again - anyone, no matter who's "side" they're on - who believes this is a black and white conflict with clear good guys and clear bad guys, doesn't have a clue about the Mid-East. What's more, if they think the solution is to unilaterally back one side, they're not just naive, they're dangerously naive - because that strategy actually makes the situation worse. Secular Jews include both Conservative and Reform Jews. One is more traditional in it's Torah interpretation than the other, but it is still secular. And of course, there are equivalent portions of Christianity and Islam as well, ie - both conservative and liberal Muslisms, who are secular as well. Why are you mentioning that? Than why did you mention it? It has nothing to do with your arguement. Are you trying to make it seem like you're down with Tha Chosen? You ARE? You are trying to make it seem like you're down with Tha Chosen! Gross, that's almost as trying as the classic: "Some of my best friend's are black! So I can't be racist!" But hey, you'd never parade around acuantances to boost your image as a white guy who's incapable of racism, and only capable of the truth . . . http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=9817 Oh, wait . . . Religions . . . Plural? You mean, all this time there's another one I'm not aware of? And yes, in the past, we've fought to keep our religion alive, but that doesn't mean that everything Jewish folks ever do is motivated by this. Because, you know, we're human - meaning we can make mistakes . . . Unless you don't think we're human . . . Oh here it is - you're suffering from the Angel/Devil dichotomy that many Gois suffer from. If they're anti-semites they believe that Jews are the source of all evil in the world through "their various conspiracies" and thus incapable of any good. You however view us as Angels - people who, for whatever reason (cause we're Tha Chosen I suppose?) are incapable of any wrongdoing, which means that Israel can never REALLY commit a wrong action (except by not going far enough for your liking in "fighting the Muslims,"). Now it's unclear why you have this unhealty obsession with us - Is it the case of subconcious Goi-guilt for the Holocaust manifesting itself in paternalistic sympathy (see: white guilt for black folks in the US), the convenient use of Jews as the "Model Minority," or could it be you just enjoy the fact that the current situation involves some Jews killing folks who are Muslim? Which is awesome because they are the great evil - right? In any case - the Angel/Devil dichotomy prevents Jews from being fully human - from being equally capable of right and wrong actions. Meaning those who are normally held accountable for wrong actions are given a free pass by the likes of yourself, and a great deal of certain (American) general publics. Which is part of the reason why Israel has gotten a relatively free pass when it comes to settlement-building in the West Bank. True about innocents being killed, but false about being tortured. I don't really call life in Israel torture, if you call that torture, than most of the world's population lives under worse torture becuase they're not as good off as Israelis are. But let's keep things in perspective - the amount of Israelis killed in violence involving Palestinians is minimal: "http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties_Data.asp?Category=5" About 230 since 2000, which of course means more people are murdered in Toronto on average every year than die in all of Israel from Palestinian violence in the same period. This doesn't mean its acceptable, or that targeting civilians isn't wrong - but it's important to remember that Israelis do not suffer as much in this conflict as Palestinians do. No, you support the policies that are so radically right wing and so unpopular in Israel you can only really say you support the National Union party.

"Okay then, link away . . ." "All white people are racist, including yourself. I have a post that proves it . . . I posted it a year ago . . ." What I just wrote is just as valid as the claim you made earlier, right? Or should we both hold ourselves to higher standards than that of a child who will do anything to twist things in their favour? Do you really think no one can instantly see what you're doing here? You're just making excuses to avoid posting facts because there are none that prove your position. No one knows if you posted something a year ago - because they either weren't on this board a year ago (like myself) or they don't have a photographic memory (like everyone else). You're exploiting this because you're lazy, or (more likely) you're lying, there never was any facts that backed up what you were saying - and you know that it's not our responsibility to file through dozens of posts to find it, so we won't do it, thus no one will prove that you're lying. That's what children do. I mean really, grow up . . .

If you read further in the post you'll see I agree with you.

How are you left-wing again?

Isn't this a little dated? After all, he is the prez now.

If he was just sending these cards to CONSERVATIVE PARTY MEMBERS who specified in their membership that they're Jewish, this would be a non-issue, because after all, every political party sends out religious holiday cards to folks of all religions who are party-members. The thing is, these folks aren't party-members, they're ordinary citizens, which means the Conservatives have had to do some investigating in order to figure out if these folks are Jewish or not. It isn't clear how they obtained this information (did they "borrow" the B'nai Brith mailing list? Or just checked the phone book for names that "sounded Jewish") but the point is it wasn't consented information. And speaking as a Jew, I can tell you that it freaks us the hell out when someone whom we've never told we're Jewish, who we don't know personally, knows we're Jewish. Even if, and in some cases, especially if, they're acting as if they want to be our friend. Call it the residual cultural paranoia of a few millenia spent on the run and under thumb - but I think it's well-founded given our history and in light of how many times political parties and lobby groups attempt to exploit us for their own political gain (see those extra-creepy Christian-Zionists in Utah & Colorado who put on theatrical productions in "Jew-face") Harper's doing what others have done before - "Hey Jews! I'm a pro-Israel Goi! Which means that in actuality I just support the opinions and policies of the conservative Likhud party, which doesn't represent all Israelis, never mind all Jews!" Short answer is this won't work and might even back fire on the Cons - I think most Jews would see that he's pulling the "I'm down with you guys cause I sent you a card" routine, assuming that we vote based on "Jewish instincts" and not for similar reasons as most Canadians. Some might decide NOT to vote for him because of how it seems sneaky, presumptious, and disturbing. Harper seems to be mistaking the opinions of conservative Jews who are pro-Israel (again, meaning pro-Likhud in actuality) with Jews as a whole. Their lobbying groups seem to have caught his ear, and are possibly exploiting HIS ignorance about the Jewish community for their own gain - the same way conservative Sikh organizations have made themselves out to be the spokespeople for the Sikh community and have the ear of the Liberal party in BC. It pays to be knowledgable, because when you're not, you can be screwed.

How do you know that all or most Muslims in Canada use Islamic Banking? Is this a fact or a personal hunch? Again, is this a personal hunch you have? Or are there facts to back this up? Because THE NP ARTICLE didn't say anything about this. Stop being so dramatic. If you call a modern subdivision 7th-century you really don't know what you're talking about. And fyi - YOU are making the arguement that these women AREN'T choosing to live there (and thereby being forced by their husbands) so the onus is on YOU to prove it. That's how you present a factually-based arguement - you make a claim then you back it up. You can't just toss around unfounded accusations. And if you're going to make the arguement that male patriarchy in Islam forces some women to do certain things they wouldn't otherwise do - I would like to point out that this is the case in Canadian society as a whole. And that therefor you need to apply the same standard across all segments of the population - it's hypocritical to criticize it in the Muslim community if you don't do it in the broader society. And when white folks choose to live in all-white communities, like Rosedale or the Beaches in Toronto, what are they doing? Aren't they choosing to live among their own? Excuse me, but if it weren't for the various progressive activist and political groups in the US and Canada (ie - the feminist movement), the movement towards women's equality would be decades behind. Are you trying to say that the status of women today is not greatly related to the efforts of the feminist movement? Can you prove this with facts? Or is this another groundless accusation? Because really, if the standard for you is that you can post opinions and not bother to back them up, and we're all supposed to accept your unsubstantiated opinions as absolute true-fact, than why can't I do the same? ie - "all white Canadians are racist because I say so, and since I know everything I don't need to prove this" (Note: because I know some partisan-hack will try and slander me - the previous sentence was complete BS, I don't believe it in the slightest, I was simply making a point, I just chose an example that Moxie could relate to, since she made gross negative generalizations about Muslims in her post)

Okay then, link away . . .

I have a problem with any community which is homogenous and where people don't interact and communicate with folks outside their community. I believe that the individuals in these communities are denied the opportunity to develop the necessary skills needed to be a fully-functioning and integrated member of a multicultural society. Of course, the thing is, conservative and orthodox Muslims aren't the only ones who do this - conservative and orthodox Jews do as well. I used to live across the street from an ortho synagogue - all of the houses that were put up for sale in that neighbourhood withing walking distance of the temple were bought by ortho families - many times two or three brothers with families would buy the house, tear it down, throw up a monster home where they all lived with their elderly parents to take care of them - this is the case in many ortho Muslim and Hindu homes as well. But let's not forget that white folks are just as guilty of this as well - they're just as likely, if not more so, to live in an ethnically homogenous community where they have little to no interaction with folks who are different from they are. But here's the hypocrisy coming out - for some reason when white folks self-segregate themselves in ethnic ghettoes called Rosedale or Forest Hill, that's not REALLY self-segregation. There's economics and practical reasons at play for the Mosque subdivision (and lets be clear here - there's no indication that it's Muslim-only, according to the article) - one is most mosques in Toronto were built in formerly industrial areas in the inner suburbs of Etobicoke, Scarborough in either new buildings or renovated former warehouses. Others were converted one or two story office buildings. This was done because the land was cheap and in some cases they could convert the building. A small handful are converted churches, like the one near Roncesvalles - in all cases there was not adequet housing close to the mosque. Either it was ridiculously expensive (Roncesvalles), or the housing was very far from the mosque with piss-poor public transit (Etobicoke, Scarborough), making this suburb development very attractive.

Clarification - I wasn't saying that, I was summarizing what I believed to be what ScottSA was saying. I agree with you and find it incredibly lazy when people make gross generalizations about complex issues and lay the blame or praise on one side.

So if a person is angry or frustrated or helpless, and they express that using racist language . . . It isn't racist? That's a huge crock of _____ and you know it. The Klan was frustrated - frustrated that their white supremacy was being challenged by black folks and Jews who "didn't know their place" Germans were frustrated with their situation after WWI and used Jews as scapegoats - does that make it okay? Everyone has frustrations in their lives, but we don't go around expressing that frustrations by becoming bigots - that's why racists are accountable to their own actions, you don't get a free pass. Of course you can judge someone based on their statements - if someone tells me that they think Jews are evil and control the world and should all die, I don't need to know their life story to know they're anti-semetic, end of story. What CAUSED them to be that way is of course something different, and it's usefull to know if you want to tackle racism, but if you're trying to determine if someone is racist or not - you don't have to memorize their biography if they're standing in front of you calling you a dirty Kyke. That's enough right there.

And my point is, that unless it's a safety issue, the "that's the uniform" excuse is bunk in today's world. There's no sense in shutting out whole segments of the population, which are only going to get bigger and bigger, because of a uniform policy. Especially when, as with the case of Turbans and the RCMP and Toronto Police - those turbans can be incorporated INTO the uniform policy. What you're essentially saying is the reason we can't change the rules is because the rules are the rules and that's the way they've always been and that's the way they'll always be. My question is - why? What exactly is the damage if someone wears a turban that matches a uniform? What great calamity will happen? The obvious answer is nothing will happen, the fabric of Canadian society will stay the same, except some police officers will wear different hats. Oh! The humanity! The thing is, it's not a choice for many Jews and Sikhs and others to wear their headgear - therefor by banning such things from the uniforms of organizations you're essentially taking the choice out of their hands. If those rules discriminate them, OF COURSE they should make an issue of it. When Jews first started coming to Canada we weren't allowed on Toronto Beaches or in parks because there were signs that said "Gentiles Only" - should we have shut up and "played by the rules?" - According to your philosophy, yes, we should have. But we didn't, and that's one of the reasons I think Canada is the great country it is today, because Jews and like-minded non-Jews fought to remove barriers and ignorance in society. Do you understand the difference between a private place of worship and a public employer? The difference means that the government can't force the Catholic church to enforce the Charter and marry a gay couple, but on the other hand the government has to ensure its workforce doesn't experience discrimination for being gay.

Excuse me Betsy, but we already have adapted, and guess what - mainstream society has for the most part adapted as well - we met each other half way . . . Jews in Canada found a way to adapt to Canadian life while keeping their core values in tact - in return Canadians did away with the "Gentiles Only" parks and beaches, stopped being rampantly anti-semetic (following WWII). As for "special priviledges" being extended to Jews - that's a load of BS. What special privilidges do we have? None - if Christians had a religious hat, you could wear it too, the thing is, you don't. Maybe that's what this is all about - some Christians are just upset they don't have a special hat to wear. Now, back to my main point which you dodged: HOW DOES MY WEARING A YAMULKE INFRINGE ON YOUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS?

Did you read the quote you just pulled from my post or not? Let me to repost it: "How does it harm your rights and freedoms when I wear a yamulke? Be specific please. Because I believe the only legal way someone's religious freedoms which are outlined in the Charter should be infringed upon by a law or policy is if it infringes on someone else's Charter rights and Freedoms." Hmmmm . . . Does stoning a woman to death violate a person's Charter Rights and Freedoms? Does it? Well then, I guess it wouldn't be allowed here in Canada, now would it? Well they already are allowed - women who wear those things go behind a curtain and reveal their face to a female Elections Canada employee to verify their identity. I don't agree with Burqaas obviously, but I don't want the government to be getting into the business of policing what people can and can't wear based on the likes or dislikes of a certain segment of the population. Now, back to my question which you conveniently dodged . . . HOW DOES IT HARM YOUR RIGHTS AND/OR FREEDOMS IF I WEAR A YAMULKE?

How does it harm your rights and freedoms when I wear a yamulke? Be specific please. Because I believe the only legal way someone's religious freedoms which are outlined in the Charter should be infringed upon by a law or policy is if it infringes on someone else's Charter rights and Freedoms. And frankly, I see absolutely no way that someone wearing a Yamulke in a professional setting infringes on anyone's rights and freedoms. Perhaps you could enlighten me if you believe it does. But frankly - I think this is more a case of certain people simply not liking people who aren't outwardly secular, or in some cases - just straight up not liking people who are of a different religion than they are. But again - someone please inform me how a yamulke hurts you, because right now this seems like folks are making mountains out of molehills. And for the record - Canada is just as much our home as it is yours. The Jewish community in Canada is centuries-old, after all.

Do you consider the following statements, which were in the same post we both read by Argus, racist? "And oh by the way we should suppress all of our own religious and cultural festivals and behaviour lest they offend the ethnic minorities - foreigners, that is - among us, or if we really must celebrate it then we have to be "inclusive" by also celebrating every other half-assed ethnic and religious festival from around the world." Translation - compared to "Canadian festivals," "foreign" festivals are half-assed, aka - less-than. Aka - inferior. "The little kids in school can't be allowed to draw pictures of Santa or Rudolph around Christmas unless they also get to celebrate Ramadan by, presumably, cutting the heads off little paper infidel dolls." Translation - Muslims are all terrorists. You're telling me you don't find this racist at all? Really?

Unfair competition isn't though. Even when Liberal Economics first emerged in Britain, the same rules applied to everyone - you didn't for example, have one group of capitalists who were able to say, invest in whatever they wanted, and another group who had restrictions on what they could invest in - thus making it impossible for them to compete with the other group. There's nothing "free" about that - that's just Imperialism masquerading as free-market capitalism. And frankly - ACTUAL free and fair trade would be more beneficial to the developing world than development aid would be. And in fact, that's what the developing world wants more - is free and fair trade rather than aid - they want to work for their future. That's not the whole story, though. Although billions may for example, collectively be spent on Africa as a whole - those billions are eclipsed by the amount of money the West spends on agricultural subsidies, which as I explained before are probably the single biggest cause of poverty in Africa. So really, you can't claim you're spending billions to alleviate poverty in Africa if at the same time your one of the the main contributors to that poverty with your economic policy. Aid is really nothing more than a way for Western governments to smokescreen their responsibility for poverty and let the leaders be able to sleep at night. In addition, although the existence of many corrupt and oppressive regimes is obviously partially the fault of folks living in those nations, for not doing enough to get rid of them - it's also partially our fault. We criticize China for example, for following a foreign policy of "business only" and supporting folks like Mugabe in Zimbabawe, and Burma's junta - but for all the criticism Western nations aren't really much better - we have no problem supporting a corrupt regime, or even interfering in the self-determination of a nation if it means more dough for us. Of course, this routinely ends up bitting us in the ass when folks in those nations eventually do get around to getting things in order and booting out the bad regime (see: Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia) or engage in insurgencies that disrupt our economic interests.

Who is saying that's what they want though? I don't recall any leader of a developing nation trying to send back their rail network, for example. And what where does this notion come from that the West is responsible for all the good things in post-colonial developing nations but none of the bad things - those are always the fault of the indigenous population. It doesn't make sense - if you're going to claim India owes the British for building railroads, you also have to claim that Britain owes India for sucking hundreds of billions of dollars out of the country and leaving it in a miserable state. I just think it's a convenient position for people who seem to be unable to admit that yes - Western nations are partly responsible for the situation the developing world finds itself in. And for the record, no one here is saying folks in developing nations aren't partially responsible as well - the thing is I'm not a citizen of a developing nation, it's not my house to get in order. The house that I live in is Canada and we're mucking things up in our own way using food subsidies (which I mentioned before). I can affect change here directly, I can't do that for Burkina Faso, which is why I'm more concerned with what we're doing than what they're doing. Why are people unable to look at world issues like this without using a polarized worldview where there's a good guy and a bad guy (in your case, West - good guy, Developing world - bad guy) - surely you don't honestly believe the world is that simple a place to understand and order?

Anyone know why China thinks it's in their interests to back a brutal regime almost unconditionally? They're blocking any security council resolution against Burma. - My guess is the thought of a another possible democracy in their midst makes them scared.

If that's the case, than the amount of rhetoric spewed about "free markets" in relation to the actual freedom of those markets is horribly lop-sidded. And really, if it is truly a case of economic Darwinism, where the have-nots are never going to have a chance to rise out of the gutter, that opens the door to a lot of other nasty tactics (see: terrorism) that the most desperate can use to affect change in their lives. After all, economics is a life and death issue in these places - keeping poor countries poor kills people - if that's actually what's happening (as you say it is) you can't argue in these circumstances that it's wrong to engage in violent tactics to achieve your goals.

Of course, that doesn't happen in Canada. If it does, please go ahead and link me to the government policy. I think what you're doing is blowing the tie-breaker policy that some companies and government agencies use WAY out of proportion. ie - two candidates with near-identical experience and qualifications - the tie-breaker goes to the woman, or the ethnic minority, because in the past (and research shows it still happens today) employers are subconciously (and sometimes conciously) more likely to hire people who look like them. And since most employers have been and are white men, that means white men have had a historical advantage. So long as the employment picture doesn't represent the makeup of Canada, you'll have this tie-breaker policy in some places. If you consider 2nd and 3rd generation Canadians "foreigners," well . . . But really, again, exaggeration - how much money do you think is spent on cultural programs? How much of the budget do you think it makes up? And do you not see the relation between a vibrant cultural scene in Canada's major cities, and a vibrant economy stimulated by the arts, resturant & entertainment industries? The money usually pays for itself in indirect ways. See, you're exaggerating again. If what you were saying is true, than all kinds of illegal acts and human rights violations wouldn't just be isolated incidents, they'd be happening all over the place. Abortions of girl babies, for example would be RAMPANT, but they're actually anything but. Exaggerating again - no one says Canadians can't feel good about whatever their cultural identity is, the problem is that some Canadians (see some Anglo & Francophone) can't seem to be able to handle not being at the centre of everything anymore - culturally or socially. They can't feel good about themselves without an air of superiority. They're used to the social universe revolving around them and can't fathom sharing the stage with folks who are different from they are. They precieve themselves as being under attack, when in reality the only thing that's under attack is their long-standing priveledged position in society - what they percieve as oppression is actually equal-standing with other folks. To put it another way, to someone who has spent their lives as a billionaire even a six-figure salary would seem poor. See, this is wear you reveal your true colours - remember what I said about some Anglo/Franco Canadians not being able to feel good about themselves without using superiority to do it? You nailed it right here - "half-assed ethnic and religious festival from around the world." - That's your own bias shining through. Something which is unfamiliar to you is automatically foreign, and therefor less-than. The reason it needs to be all or nothing (all festivals celebrated or none at all) is because in a society committed to inclusion and equality, no one can be left out of public, government-funded celebrations, such as holiday concerts at school. Okay, well, now I see where your views are coming from - you're a bigot. And please - spare me the "I'm not racist! I just hate people who aren't white and Christian!" routine, it's really old. I gave you a chance, but you just couldn't resist dropping little gems like this one, I would have continued this, but the same rules apply to you as to the Jew-hating anti-semite - there's no point, there's no way to reason, logic and facts don't matter. I hope you enjoy airing your views on internet forums, because that's pretty much the only place in society left where you can air them without getting told off, or worse.