JB Globe

The only people I am aware of who were shot by people out looking to kill Muslims immediately after 9/11 were a Sikh man who was either working or filling up his tank at a gas station and an Egyptian . . . Who was a Coptic Christian. I've been meaning to dig up the links for years, I'll see if I can find them. I'm sure there were a boatload of people that were assaulted, and I'm sure most of those instances didn't get reported because of how busy the police were on those days and the general toxicity in the air in those days and weeks.

There's nothing rational about that impulse at all - not in the logic used in formulating the conclusion, and certainly not in how often it's applied. If Fort Hood and Times Square prove that Muslim-Americans are all secret terrorists, than the crap that Wall Street has been pulling for the past several years absolutely proves that white people are corporate criminals . . . I mean, if someone subscribes to that BS logic of course. If people are going to be an emotionally reactionary, they should at least be CONSISTENT about it for God's sake . . .

If what you're saying is true, which it probably isn't, than Americans are even more stupid than their worst detractors give them credit for. After all - it takes a special kind of idiot to carpet bomb several countries which count themselves as your biggest oil supplier. Remember when you were a kid and you would see how loosely you could dangle something from your fingertips without dropping and breaking it? . . . But sometimes you'd end up breaking it? Bombing Saudi Arabia and permanently tanking the US economy would kinda be like that. Good thing I think you're wrong on this one.

Which, ironically, is EXACTLY the kind of reaction that the folks who carry out the bombings are hoping for. Politicians know this - they also know that it's easier to win elections through fear-mongering than it is to explain to a scared and ignorant public that Al-Qaeda and others desperately want to engage the US in global asymmetric warfare under the guise of a "Clash of Civilizations" . . . And they want to do this because they would probably win: the US would bankrupt itself fighting un-winnable foreign wars like that in Afghanistan. When you subscribe to the "all Muslims are terrorists" line of thinking, you make Bin Laden smile . . . And I hate thinking of that guy smiling . . .

Yes, I have a theory. That there is a implication in this post that bigoted white people such as yourself still believe that they can dictate how biracial people construct their own identity. Here's a newsflash - your cute little opinions on how biracial people should view themselves don't matter to anyone but your friends on Stormfront. This post was hilarious, thanks for the comedy.

Yes, I remember . . . It was 15 months ago. Policy changes, especially foreign policy changes, take some time to implement. And results of diplomatic efforts take even longer. But guess what? - They're worth it sometimes: just ask Reagan & Gorbachev. It's probably safe to say that many of the foreign policy changes haven't even been a year old - so judging their success or failure now is absurd. I mean really - you probably still hold out hope that Iraq is going to turn around and Dubya's adventure there will turn out to be worth it after 7 years, so where do you get off calling Obama's efforts a failure after less than 12 months? And for the record - no one in his camp made the claim that this change would happen quickly, whereas I seem to remember a certain defence secretary saying that Iraq would take "days, weeks . . . Maybe a few months" in 2002. It'd be a lot more productive if it were simply a critical look at his policies rather than another partisan hack-job. You also chose to ignore some clear improvements around the world - the most important of which is now there is solid government-military cooperation in Pakistan against their homegrown insurgents and terrorists. Hell, there's even widespread public support for the campaign now - the news media there is fully on-board as well. That right there pretty much trumps all the other "failures" because Pakistan's ability to go after insurgents and terrorists is more important to America's security than even what happens in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course, there's no real way to tie any of these "successes" and "failures" to Obama's policies until historians and poly-sci folks can analyze this a little further down the road. Trying to cast judgement on this right now seems more like a desperate attempt to portray anything Obama's done as a failure before the results are in.

Argus on what criteria he uses for deciding if someone is Canadian or not (after earlier stating that he does not consider people Canadian just because they or their parents, or grandparents born and grew up here. So you're definition of who is or isn't a Canadian isn't definable? Than how do you expect any government to adopt it as a policy? Are you even being serious here anymore? You know what, I don't think you are - after all, you began this latest response by insisting that Immigration and Colonialism are the same thing, even when the most conservative of Historians and Polisci Profs would laugh at you, because it's blatantly wrong. Listen, if you're not going to take this seriously, or are going to continue to be completely disingenuous, or just plain too cowardly to ACTUALLY STATE YOUR BELIEFS, than I'm not going to bother anymore. As I've said before, you allude to holding certain beliefs, refuse to clarify what your beliefs actually are, thus forcing people to make assumptions, then feign outrage when people summarize what appear to be your beliefs - saying that you hold no such ideas . . . Then you proceed to never actually clarify what your beliefs actually are. I've been pretty patient with you so far, but you know what? I'm going on vacation this week for 3 weeks overseas and I'd rather spend that time wrapping up loose ends and spending time with people worth my time. Enjoy your echo chamber, I won't be coming back to this thread.

Back when there were many more Jews in Canada than Arabs, what was Canada's position on the Israeli-Palestinian issue? Was it pro-Israeli? Nope - Canada wanted to play the part of an honest broker whose main goal was to get people talking. This only changed recently with the Harper government, and believe me, the opinions of the old Reform party base have a lot more to do with Harper's position than appealing to the half of the Jewish population that is hawkish on Israel. After all, there's a lot more of the former in Canada. The fact is that neither population will ever be large enough to swing Canada's position on the issue to either extreme - what we're seeing now is as hawkish on Israel as Canada's foreign policy will ever be. There's also the factor that you seem to be overlooking: that "ethnic" issues are not the be all and end all of voting for people of religious/ethnic minority communities. The CBC did a lot of polling and coverage on just what exactly minorities vote on in the last election, the found that the primary concerns are nearly identical to white Canadians: jobs, economy, health, education, etc. But, as I've pointed out before - these communities don't exist. You're not going to find any school, anywhere where most of the children are from one country. You will however, still find schools in the heart of Toronto where most students are white. There's not many, but they exist. Name the ones in Toronto. I think we're perfectly capable of doing both. We can't take in everyone, but I think your underestimating how many we can handle. We still don't even know if that's true or not in Ottawa, much less if the same situation exists in Toronto. This is theoretically possible, but it just doesn't exist in reality in Canada.

Co-sign.

Find me one historian that agrees with this idea of yours, because according to the basic dictionary definition of either immigration or colonialism you're wrong. I'll say it again - with immigration, the nation can turn off the taps whenever it wants to and cease all immigration. It can also set all of the terms of whether immigrations can integrate, or whether they must completely assimilate into the host nation's culture, which does not change a bit. With colonialism, the indigenous peoples have extremely little/no say in any of the terms that the colonial power sets. In fact in many cases, most colonial powers didn't even recognize indigenous peoples as human beings, and thus they weren't even considered a part of the colonial enterprise, never mind having any say in it. In one case the "immigrants" have all the power to make whatever decisions they want, in the other case the immigrants only have the ability to make decisions as dictated by the country they are immigrating to. I don't think it could be any more clear than that. I think you're being completely irrational with continuing to insist on this point - you really should just let this one go. I never said it was acceptable, in fact I said I hoped they didn't turn their culture into some sort of static dogma entrenched in law, but of course you won't admit that because you can't go without mischaracterizing my argument. Fact of the matter is that even without any immigration, culture within Canada would be changing, so to treat it like it's some sort of monolith that is unchanging throughout time is ridiculous. Frankly, the absence of immigrants doesn't eliminate homophobia. The Reform party was homophobic, and they were homegrown evangelicals. They spearheaded the effort against same sex marriage in this country. As for immigration - while new Canadians may indeed be more religious than Canadian-born citizens, there are significant jumps away from orthodoxy/conservatism religious interpretations and towards more progressive secular ones with each passing generation. This happened with the children of Catholic Italian/Portuguese immigrants & Greek Orthodox immigrants in the 1940's - 60's, and it's happening with the current 1st generation Canadian children from families of various religious backgrounds. And there's no reason to believe it won't continue, so long as we maintain the notion in this country that you can subscribe to a non-Christian religion and at the same time still be fully Canadian. When religious minorities are made to feel fully part of a country, they're not going to feel motivated to try and change it. For the record, you realize that you can be very religious and still be progressive, right? Religiosity doesn't automatically mean someone is a homophobe or thinks women are inferior. This is especially true in de-centralized religions such as Hinduism. But as I said before, the children of these immigrants are not as conservative as their parents, you're still making the assumption that non-white/non-Christian Canadians are always going to be more conservative. How conservative/religious are the descendants of Chinese railway workers vs. Jewish-Russian railway workers like my great grandfather who also worked on the railway in the West? My guess is going to be they're pretty similar. And again, I highly doubt that 1st generation Sikh Indo-Canadians are any more religious or conservative than 1st generation Catholic Italian-Canadians were decades ago. But MOST importantly - all of these various religious groups have their own beliefs, practices and agendas. There is no conspiracy among Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, and Confucianists - they are not working together to overturn same sex marriage along with the Catholic church. This notion that all religious affiliations are working together to undermine Canadian democracy and/or equality is simply without any precedent, and I defy you to find me an example of this, in Canada or even abroad. This is what I mean by the chicken-little predictions of a less-white, less anglo-dominated Canada. Yet, according to a Royal Bank report in 2005, immigration contributes to the economy, and recommended RAISING immigration levels. A 2002 U of Montreal report found that there is no impact to Canada's per-capita-income from immigration. Wrong. Violent crime has been falling in Canada since 1992, same with the overall crime rate. The cities with the highest murder rates in Canada are also the cities with the lowest immigration rates in Canada: Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton, etc. The fact is, high levels of immigration in Canada have coincided with steady declines in crime and violent crime, and the safest cities in Canada have high levels of immigration. These cities are also much safer than their American counterparts of the same size, which have relatively low levels of immigration. The most anti-semitic period in Canadian history occurred when immigration was at a fraction of its current size in the 1930's-40's. Also, you don't see Jewish groups advocating for reducing immigration as a means of reducing anti-semitism precisely because they know that anti-semitism is just as likely to be found among white Christians as it is among most immigrant groups. The only real factor that makes any sort of difference is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, without which, you would probably not see increased levels of anti-semitism among Muslim-Canadians. Of course, the opposite is true as well, in that the conflict also drives Islamophobia up among a segment of the Jewish population as well. It shouldn't come as a surprise that a long-running and high-stakes conflict with religious and ethnic undertones generates polarization and then bigotry on both sides. But thankfully, Jewish groups realize that this is not grounds for reducing immigration, but rather for dialogue and constructive debate. Most Canadian urban areas consist of on average around 50% suburban development. In the case of Ottawa, it's higher than that, and in Calgary, I'd argue it's around 90%. Our population density in cities is well below that of Europe and a fraction of places like Japan. There are for example, still numerous surface parking lots all over downtown Toronto. We still have a lot of room to grow. Also, density doesn't automatically = lower quality of life. Some of the densest cities in Europe are also among the best to live in, for example. Do you have any specific examples of this? That's the last of your reasons against immigration - I'm still not seeing any substantial evidence that immigration is harming Canada's economy or values. Even on the economic front - there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus. However all of the reports indicating immigration is damaging come from conservative think tanks, and several of the pro-immigration reports have come from the research units at financial institutions with no political agendas. That's just simply not true. It's a statistical improbability that there is any several block radius in Canada that does not have any Canadian-born residents. It IS however possible that you can find small pockets in urban areas where there are almost no visible minorities (ie - I mentioned Rosedale in Toronto before) The only way you could say these areas that have majority visible-minorities don't have anyone Canadian is to say that non-whites aren't Canadian - you're not saying that, are you? Are you making the argument that Canada should get out of the refugee business and using Somalis as an example? Keep in mind that this would require turning away people like your hero, Hirsi Ali, had she applied to Canada. I've never heard that stat before. But of course, Somali Canadians are mostly refugees, not immigrants. More accurately, they're refugees from conflict zones. As such, they weren't selected based on educational/skill criteria like immigrants (or even like refugees from post-conflict zones are, ie - WWII "displaced persons"). Add to that fact they were fleeing a brutal war, and many people are victims of trauma and abuse. Throw into the mix racism based on their race and religion, and you have a potent cocktail. Refugees typically have a much harder time than immigrants because they usually arrive with no possessions or savings, therefor usually there are higher rates of poverty and crime. That has more to do with any specific situation than some inherent tendency to violence and criminality. So are you going to acknowledge the unique set of circumstances that Somali Canadians face? Or just continue to make sarcastic remakes that avoid dealing with the facts? It's basic sociology. In general when you belong to a group that makes a up a majority of a country, and that dominates it's political, economic and cultural centres, you don't have to interact with people of another group who make up a minority of that country's population in order to lead a prosperous economic life. If you were a minority, you'd be condemning yourself to a life of isolation and poverty if you did the same. Therefor, you have to integrate and learn to relate to people who are different from you are. Sorry, so are immigrants from homogenous areas or are they from areas that have a mix of ethnic groups and nationalities? Which is it? Canada's top 10 source countries in order: China, India, Philippines, Pakistan, US, Columbia, UK, South Korea, Iran, France Most immigrants are professionals or skilled workers, most professionals and skilled workers in any of these countries were born/raised/lived in major cities. Most major city in most of these countries is diverse in terms of having a mix of ethnic groups and in some cases religious groups. Especially the countries whose immigrants you seem to be the most concerned about. Because they have a lot more in common being immigrants than they are different. I used to work at a major hotel in downtown Toronto while in school, almost everyone who worked there was an immigrant. It was exceedingly rare for people to not have good friends who weren't of a different ethnic background. There were some tensions between certain people, but this was not the rule, seeing as how most people came here to get away from conflict among other things, they didn't want to perpetuate it. Case in point - one of the first things I noticed was that all the North Indian/Pakistani guys from different departments hung out together once in a while to catch up, regardless of if they were Sikh or Hindu, Muslim. Because they all spoke Hindi/Urdu. One of the great past times of everyone there was to learn as many swear words in as many different languages as possible, which required befriending people of other backgrounds. Maybe I got the idea from what I was reading in school, and then saw it in reality everyday - that's what kinda confirmed it. Since we're swapping anecdotes - the only times I've been had anti-semitic slurs used against me, it was always Anglo-Canadians. Guess that means that all Anglo-Canadians are anti-semites. 90% not white and 90% not Canadian born are two completely different things. You're not going to find many schools with the later ratio. Are you unaware that a large amount of the young non-white people you see walking down the street are probably born here? And that even among those that aren't most were very young when they came? What these kids will learn is how to form relationships with people of ANY ethnic background, including Anglo-Canadians. ie - if a Muslim kid and a Hindu kid can become friends, than there's nothing stopping them from befriending a white, Christian kid. Go find a street hockey game on any given street in Scarborough, or a soccer field in Rexdale, you'll see what I'm talking about. The only people that these kids have problems befriending are people who don't have any ability to relate to people outside their own ethnic group - people who grew up in monocultural communities and don't posses those skills. I don't buy that one bit, not if anti-immigrant sentiment is as popular as you suggest. How popular do you think women's suffrage was? Somehow women got the right to vote even without being able to vote. Anti-immigrant Canadians don't nearly have the same kind of cards stacked against them. And they've done absolutely nothing in 50 years to form any sort of political movement. To be completely honest, I put equal weight on the opinions of all law-abiding Canadian citizens, regardless of where they were born or what God they worship/don't worship, what they eat for dinner, or what colour their skin is. I think that's pretty much the main difference between you and I on this issue. As you said before, you don't automatically assume someone is a Canadian because they're born here. I suppose there's some sort of test they have to pass before you change your mind, what is it exactly?

There are few historians alive that would agree with this, and I defy you to find any that do. Colonialism is the building and maintaining of colonies of one state in a region occupied indigenously by another people, often against their will. The indigenous population usually has little to no say in how this arrangement pans out, and is often the target of political and economic marginalization, or outright military/paramilitary violence. Immigration is a government policy that allows people to migrate to a nation to become a part of the workforce and usually the greater society. The numbers and terms of the movement of people are set ENTIRELY by the nation state. That's a key difference - there's a totally different power structure. Colonialism and immigration are completely different, the only thing they share is the fact that both involve people moving from one place to another. Saying that they're the same is like saying the Falklands War and the Khmer Rouge genocide are the same thing because they involve organized violence - it's blatantly cherry picking the one thing that they share in common while ignoring the dozens and dozens of other factors that are completely different. Quebec is no more racist/intolerant/pick a term, etc. than the rest of Canada. The only real difference is that they have a history of being marginalized by the rest of English Canada, and as a result have developed a much more insular culture as a means of cultural survival. This makes it difficult for them to incorporate people not born Quebcois fully into Quebcois society. Saying Quebec is more racist than the rest of Canada is just way too simplistic and ignores its history which is much different than the rest of the country. Hopefully, they'll realize that focusing more on language and less so on making a dogma out of Quebcois culture will be more helpful in the long run. Your argument, as usually, rests on a lot of uninformed gross assumptions, namely: 1 - All non-white immigrants are religious, and almost always highly conservative and orthodox 2 - The Canadian-born and raised children of these immigrants are just as conservative and orthodox as their parents are 3 - That all non-white immigrants are homogenous in their political aspirations: namely, that they all seek to overpower and dominate white people. I mean, now you're just making up things that don't exist in the original statscan study that you referenced in the beginning of the article, ie - your claim that "a huge number of voters in twenty or thirty or forty years are extremely religious hindus, sikhs and Muslims" You didn't say this was a hypothetical, you stated it as fact, which it isn't. Not only did the study not mention the religious makeup of Canada in 20 years, your reality would be impossible because at that time only 1 in 3 Canadians would be of a visible minority - which is nothing near a "huge majority" And add to that fact that this third of Canadians who won't be white will have just as many Filipinos, Africans and Latinos who are Christian as it does Hindus. Meaning, that even among non-white Canadians, there is no one religion large enough to be able to change the chart if in fact, all of its members were orthodox and voted as a bloc (which they don't). You don't seem to realize just how much diversity there will be among this 1/3 of Canadians in 2030, you keep treating them like they're some sort of homogenous mass who all think the same. I disagree, but I'm not going to re-hash this issue again, we've done it before. Instead I'm going to agree to disagree and argue that if there is no evidence that it's either helped or hurt Canada, but instead that immigration is a benign force, than why eliminate it? If it isn't broke, don't fix it - you might end up with unintended consequences. Yes, but I have more lived-experience with Anglo Canadians - I tend to use examples I'm directly familiar with. I said hard, not impossible. There are extremely few buildings such as the one you mentioned, where one ethnic group makes up a large portion of the tenants, and almost always the ethnic group is comprised entirely of refugees. That's important - because their experiences are drastically different than those of immigrants. Generally, if you've experienced the trauma of war, of persecution, or the double -whammy of both, you're going to want to seek safety and comfort above all else, and in a new country that's going to take the form of people whom you consider to be of your community. The same was true of refugees from Eastern Europe who arrived after WWII, but within a generation, most of their children did not live in such neighbourhoods or apartment buildings, because they were free from trauma and thus were more outgoing than their parents and able to make connections with people outside their community. The same thing applies to Somali-Canadians - those children that are and will grow up free from trauma will most likely establish connections outside their community. Keep in mind that the Somali-Canadian community is one of the youngest in Canada, and already they are making many inroads. ie - there are many Somali Canadians in post-secondary school in the GTA, and many involved in the arts scene as well. I'd say they're where they're should be in comparison to past groups of refugees such as those from Eastern Europe post WWII, or Vietnam post-war. I didn't say that all white folks, after all, I'm white and so are a lot of my friends. I also didn't say all non-white folks are embracing of other people either. Anyone can be a bigot. You're completely mischaracterizing my argument, as usual. I'll repeat what I said in an even more straightforward manner: non-white, and especially Anglo-Canadians tend to have less of an ability to relate to people of other backgrounds and racial groups as fully realized human beings, instead of variations of stereotypes. This is primarily due to the fact that as a minority it is much more difficult, but not impossible to isolate yourself amongst people of your own culture than it is for people who belong to a majority. Minorities face economic marginalization if they don't develop the skills to integrate themselves, thus they have more of an incentive to do so versus say, an Anglo-Canadian that lives in Grey County, or a wealthy Anglo-Canadian that lives in Rosedale and is an executive at Royal Bank. Are we clear now? Canada IS there in the form of various public and private institutions that make up key components of our society such as, the education system. What do you mean by "there is no Canada there" - explain. It differs for each community, because they're all different, but I still fail to see what the issue is if a neighbourhood is under 10% populated by white people - how is that inherently bad in and of itself? I'll say it again - don't post blatantly biased websites yourself if you're going to turn around and criticize others for doing the same thing. Most of the data is outdated, and frankly I simply don't trust blatantly biased websites to not only avoid cherry-picking facts, but even to not distort or invent polls and data themselves. Now I could go and find some sort of rabidly pro-immigration website to counter the one you posted, but instead I'll post a link to a PDF article by he head of Environics, which is a polling company. To pre-empt claims of "lefty pro-immigrant bias", I'll point out that the author is the former leader of the young PC's in Ontario, and that Environics does research for private companies, such as newspapers, such as the National Post. If you're going to call bias, make sure you don't accidentally reference an Environics poll in the post that shows for example, Harper's approval rating rising. As he mentions, Canadian attitudes towards immigration and multiculturalism have become more positive over time, even with increased levels of immigration, to the point where from the 80's to today, the amount of people who hold negative opinions (either strong or slightly negative) of multiculturalism has gone from 2/3rds to 1/3rd. And Multiculturalism as a source of national pride has gone from 10th place to 2nd, just behind democracy at #1. As I said before, if people are that strongly opposed to something, they organize and force political parties to take action. But the fact that there hasn't been ANY credible anti-immigration political movement at all since things changed in the 60's speaks volumes. You mentioned the Reform party, and I'll point out one of the biggest reasons why they couldn't break out of the prairies, even after they stopped being a "Western party" in terms of their policies, was that they they were anti-immigrant (and homophobic, which is one of the knocks you used against non-Christian religious groups before, remember?), and that attitude only really flies in places where there aren't any immigrants (which is an environment in which it's easier to harbour anti-immigrant sentiment), and the prairies have historically had some of the lowest immigration rates in Canada, primarily because they've been have-not provinces for so long, and immigrants migrate to where the new jobs are . . . Note, in case you want to mischaracterize me again - I'm not saying that the prairies are INHERENTLY anti-immigrant, like it's in the water or something. But of course, even non-immigrants in those cities have a higher opinion of multiculturalism than non-immigrants in rural areas. It's telling that people with the most direct experience living with multiculturalism have a higher opinion of it than folks who have never/rarely experienced it. It begs the question of who's opinion is more valid? ie - On the issue of Ottawa being a nice place to live, do you weight the opinion of someone who's never been to Ottawa the same as a lifetime resident? quote name='Argus' date='13 March 2010 - 10:06 AM' timestamp='1268491087' post='519870']But I'm not sure what your point is. My point is, that the chicken-little predictions that are based on irrational fears about immigration and multiculturalism have more to do with the declining dominance of Anglo-Canadian culture in Canada and less to do with any economic or democratic damage supposedly caused by immigration. We just haven't seen any evidence that Canada will be a worse place to live in 20 years because 1 in 3 people won't be white, it's as simple as that. It's really only a terrifying reality if you don't really like non-white folks.

Officially declared a Troll. Stop wasting your time with someone who just wants to get a rise out of you.

That wasn't immigration, that was COLONIALISM. The two are worlds apart. Of course, this occurred before bilingualism became official policy when in fact the Anglo-dominated political system actually were trying to marginalize and eliminate Quebecois and Acadian culture and language. Bilingualism was of course the basis for multiculturalism - which, under law, protects the freedom of expression of any religious or ethnic minority - meaning that if Anglo-Canadian culture becomes a minority one day, it would benefit from the same laws and programs that today benefit others. It's a policy designed to promote balance and social integration/cohesion, after all. Classic Straw man - there's no substantial evidence that immigration has hurt Canada in comparison to developed countries with low levels of immigration. quote name='Argus' date='12 March 2010 - 10:43 AM' timestamp='1268406915' post='519500']How do you know the nation is any stronger today than it would have been united and whole under one French ruler? In what way is Canada stronger than other nations with more homogenous populations - which do not have the constant linguistic arguments or the complexities of serving dual solitudes? Please explain how we are stronger than, say, Sweden. So are you trying to re-write immigration policy? Bilingualism? Canadian history? Let's stay with recent times and look Which enclaves are we talking about here? Can you name them? The only areas in Toronto where over 90% of residents belong to one racial group are places like Rosedale, The Beaches, Swansea, Forest Hill . . . Which are overwhelmingly white. From where I sit, it seems that Anglo-Canadians self-segregate themselves a lot more than other groups do on a proportional basis. Part of that is numbers - it's harder to isolate yourself when you're a minority, but part of it is also the fact that lots of white folks still in this day and age lack multicultural skills - they don't know how to interact with people from different backgrounds as fully realized humans. Thankfully this seems like this is largely a generational issue - and as more The kids who grow up and go to school in places like Rexdale, Jane & Finch, Regent Park, Malvern and other areas with lots of visible minorities have classmates from dozens of different backgrounds. These neighbourhoods are made up of people from everywhere: the Caribbean, the Philippines, India, Russia, Vietnam, etc. - a neighbourhood can't be an enclave if everyone has neighbours and friends from different places. The only thing you can really say about these places is that they are under 50% for white residents, but there still are quite a few around. ie - There are lots of Italians and Eastern Europeans that live in Jane & Finch. As for that child you're talking about - they are most often the child of parents who have immigrated recently and thus don't have a strong command of English themselves, it's not like they're not teaching their kid English on purpose. That's why schools have programs for kids who need extra help, such as parent-child ESL classes. Way to take a huge exception and make it the rule. The Khadrs are not representative of the Canadian Muslim community at all. That's because for most Canadians, it's a relative non-issue. People who want less immigration are always in the 20-30% range of the total population at any given time, and even among them, there's few people who feel very strongly about it - it's not a major motivator for them politically, hence why most political parties don't try to become the "anti-immigration party." - it won't get you elected because people don't care that much . . . Except for a small minority - for whom immigration is almost everything.

Funny, the last time you commented on anything I posted you chimed in on a conversation I was having with someone else, and said this: You regularly go off-topic and hurl personal insults. People are tired of you being immature, evasive, disingenuous, and manipulative. When you behave like that, you shouldn't act all shocked when people stop taking you seriously, and refuse to deal with you anymore. It takes a special kind of troll to pretend to be outraged that someone is giving them a taste of their own medicine. Enjoy your own echo chamber.

Not in and of itself. But questioning immigration policies based almost purely on the underlying assumption that non-white people are inherently inferior/dangerous/subversive is by definition racist.

Did Canada fall apart when it became a more Scottish, Welsh and Irish nation when immigration laws were relaxed in the 18th century? Canada changed, and the nativists of the time did the chicken-little mambo, but in fact the nation became stronger by working to incorporate the best of all of Canada's various communities in the the greater whole. Same rules apply here. When a child of immigrants to Canada is born here, they're not foreign-born any more. Unless of course what you have a different definition, which I hope you'll share with us, so that we're not forced to make assumptions. Yes, they did, it's called an ELECTION PLATFORM. If Canadians really didn't like what politicians were selling, they would have voted accordingly. Oh, and you do realize that Diefenbaker started immigration reform, right? The Cons were actually ahead of the Liberals in the 60's in that department, Trudeau had to warm up to the idea first. I think people did think long and hard about that one. And considering that we're one of the best places in the world to live, I don't think they were mistaken.

Mr. Canada hates Jews, except when the left "hates Jews," then he's our best friend. Classic stuff - thanks for digging up the quote from this troll.

"Immigrants are stealing my jobs!" = the mating call of the lazy idiot.

You tell me to go away and then bait me to comment. Make up your mind. Which is it? Personal echo chamber or a discussion?

Although this post wasn't personally directed at me, I think Argus is still referring to his idea of who I am in it, so I'm responding. Besides, he can't expect to call me a self-hating Jew and then run away like a little boy without explaining himself. This isn't kindergarten. What exactly do you know about what it means to be Jewish? Can you even define it without cutting and pasting from Wikipedia? People on BOTH sides of the debate do this. And frankly, the neo-con hawkish Likhud camp does this a lot more often. Much like the "if you don't support the Iraq war, you're anti-american" argument in 2003 in the US, the far-right in the Israeli community and diaspora equates anything but unwavering support of all Israeli policies with being a self-hating Jew or an anti-semite. Non Jewish neo-cons have also seized this opportunity, but haven't yet figured out how to call a Jew a "self-hating Jew" without it coming off as inherently anti-semitic. There's something inherently bigoted about someone from outside an ethnic/religious group shouting down someone from that group as "not a true member" because of their political opinions. I never bring my Jewishness into the argument unless someone else brings it in: ie - someone directly calls me a self-hating Jew or says that any Jew who holds my opinion is a self-hater. And I always respond by posting comments and articles from folks like Ehud Barak, and various Israeli scholars and journalists who share my opinions, along with polling data that shows that a large chunk of Israelis think the same way. The whole point I'm making in those circumstances is to point out that it's not even logically possible to make the "self-hating Jew" argument if 30-40% of all Jews hold that opinion. Because Jewishness is defined by consensus among all Jews - and if there's no clear consensus on a given issue between Jews, it's logically impossible for anyone to definitively say "this is the true Jewish opinion on issue x, everyone who disagrees hates themselves" So how many Nazi groups have Jewish members exactly? You make it sound like a pandemic, where it's probably less than a handful. And, you talk as if this isn't happening on the other side of the fence. As if bigots haven't used Jews as "model minorities" for decades for their own purpsoes: "I'm pro-segregation, but I can't be racist! My deputy secretary is Jewish!" Then there's the whole "Jewish cultural festivals" those evangelicals put on all the time in Utah, and invite folks like Ariel Sharon to speak at, and pretend to "love Jews" when in reality they want to bring about the apocalypse, where they ascend to heaven and all Jews burn in the fire because we don't believe in Jesus. EVERYONE has tried to use Jews - trying to say that certain sides of a debate are illegitimate because they do so means there is no legitimate debate - because everyone is guilty of this. Quite frankly, if the rest of the world kept their nose out of the conflict going on - it would get resolved a lot quicker. At least then we wouldn't have the world's lone superpower basically backing the agenda of ONE spectrum in Israeli politics. Frankly, I think you're just using the whole self-hating Jew/anti-semite card as an escape hatch to get out of debates when you realize you're clearly in over your head. I also think your obsession with Likhud/Shas talking points has more to do with the anti-Arab sentiment they hold than any sort of positive feelings towards Jewish folks.

Yet you respond to everything I post, so you clearly care quite a bit. You're just not smart enough to do anything but troll - that's the real truth. Go ahead and prove me wrong, construct an actual argument and see it through instead of trolling the minute anyone points out its flaws.

What I'm saying is if you looked at the sum of his teachings on war, you probably wouldn't put him in the same category as Genghis Khan, for example.

What was that? Sorry, I thought you said that Ali and Sultan are opportunistic bigots whose "solutions" to Islamism are at-bestj impossible and at-worst totally counterproductive. Add to that the fact that both of them have lied about their past, and yet are using those personal histories to advance their careers. You sure know how to pick them. The funny part of all of this is - you could read Daniel Pipes or any other neo-con who specializes in study of Islamist movements, and even though I'd still disagree with a good chunk of what he says - at least he's actually somewhat of a credible academic, and we could actually have an intelligent conversation. But intelligent conversation means doing away with tactics such as abruptly ending a debate with youtube videos to taunt the other guy the way an 13 year old might do. You know what? Don't bother reading Pipes, he's over your head and uses big words. Stick with Wilders, Condel, Ali and Sultan - they're great for idiots.

Thanks for that. As you see, Argus isn't going to actually tell me why I'm a "self hating Jew" in his eyes. There are several reasons for this: 1 - He's not that smart, because if he were, he wouldn't have to resort to trying to shut down debate in order to avoid loosing by calling me a "self hating Jew" and then running away like a little boy. 2 - It would require him forming an actual argument supported by facts, instead of making many random statements in the hopes of one of them sticking. 3 - Knowing why someone is a self-hating Jew requires knowledge of what it means to be Jewish, and Argus doesn't have the slightest idea about that. I would have liked to include there's something inherently foolish about someone from outside an ethnic/religious group, lecturing someone inside that group about who is or isn't a true member of that group. But of course, Argus apparently has no problems making a complete fool out of himself. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point he tried lecturing a black man on what it means to be black in his non-black mind.

Co-sign. I'm actually starting to think this guy is a teenager.