Jump to content

Machjo

Member
  • Posts

    4,271
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Machjo

  1. 3 minutes ago, Argus said:

    Do you understand how Capitalism works? If they can't find staff, they raise wages until they can. That will affect demand to some degree. Some restaurants will close until the demand and supply are equalized at the new price. That's healthy. The ones who fail will be the weak ones, and the workers will find jobs elsewhere.

    Higher wages at Tim Hortons will make Canada less attractive to skilled labour and the professional class too so they'll leave Canada too, so businesses will need to offer them higher wages too. The wage increase throughout the Canadian economy will undoubtedly affect exports.

  2. On 7/28/2019 at 8:14 PM, Argus said:

    I swear Todd is the only mainstream reporter in Canada who reports on immigration, other than feel-good stories. And while the Vancouver Sun is part of the Postmedia chain his columns almost never wind up being exported to other papers. Guess it just doesn't fit the narrative.

    A big jump in the number of guest workers is hurting low-wage employees and others across Canada, according to economists.

    The number of non-permanent foreign workers arriving in Canada each year has doubled in the past decade, escalating particularly after the federal Liberal government was elected in 2015.

    Partly as a result of the increasing flow of guest workers, UBC economist David Green and Carleton University’s Christopher Worswick say in a paper that new immigrants are doing “worse and worse” in regards to earned incomes. And it’s Canada’s low-wage workers who are suffering the most.

    Even though businesses frequently lobby politicians to allow more guest employees, Green says the latest hikes are putting downward pressure on wages and threatening respect for workers. They’re exacerbating the kind of scenario, he said, that lead to the rise of Donald Trump and Britain’s Brexit movement.

    Saying it’s “truly dumb” for the federal government to continue boosting low-skilled guest workers in the country, Green emphasized the vast majority of Canadians don’t appear to be aware of the labour-market shift. “It’s totally under the radar.”

    https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-dramatic-jump-in-guest-workers-hurts-canadians-low-wage-earners

    Have you ever read about freight ships? If businesses can't higher workers here, they'll just move to where they can. Or do you propose protectionism too? Free trade and immigration are more closely linked than some care to admit.

  3. On 7/25/2019 at 10:39 AM, Argus said:

    Maxime Bernier has finally come out with a full out speech on immigration going well beyond earlier hints. Among his promises is to drop immigration to between 100k and 150k, put an end to illegal border crossing even if that means fencing off miles of border, outlaw birth tourism, and require potential immigrants to have face to face interviews which will include values testing, and to prioritize economic immigrants. On refugees, he said Canada needs to prioritize those immigrants who can't be safely housed in nearby countries, like Christians and Yazidis.

    There's nothing in this speech for me to dislike. I have been giving serious consideration to going PPC in the upcoming election, and given this as well as the rest of the PPCs policies, including doing away with corporate welfare and inter-provincial trade barriers, I think that this year I'll be voting for the PPC.

    Bernier also said in his speech that he will reduce the total intake of immigrants and refugees to between 100,000 and 150,000 annually, depending on economic circumstances, which is significantly lower than the federal Liberals’ target of 350,000 per year. He also said he will outlaw “birth tourism,” a practice in which foreign travellers come to Canada to deliver children as a way to secure citizenship. He promised to increase the proportion of economic immigrants to non-economic-class immigrants and require immigration applicants to go through face-to-face interviews to assess the extent to which they align with Canadian values.

    https://ottawacitizen.com/news/build-a-fence-maxime-bernier-announces-plan-by-peoples-party-to-crack-down-on-immigration/wcm/3873d4aa-28c8-4722-bd69-d0e885392263

    I would abandon quotas altogether and replace them with a test instead. For example, as a long-term strategy, I could imagine Canada reuiwing anyone born more than one year after the new law is passed to obtain one of three 5-year language passports to enter Canada:

    An English-language passport (ELP),

    A French-language passport (PLF), and

    An Esperanto Passport (EP).

    To obtain any of these passports, the person would have to:

    1. Be under age fifteen or over age seventy,

    2. Obtain a compassionate exemption, with the reason for the exemption detailed in the passport and the passport expiring after the time that the person is expected to need it for the compassionate grounds, or

    3. Pass a test proving mastery of the language of the passport.

    Additionally, he might have to sign a self-exclusion form to exclude himself from casinos for the duratin of the passport good measure.

    He'd have to pay the market price for the passport including emergency medical coverage included in the passport (so it would be somewhat expensive but then he could be exempted from other fees or taxes to compensate should he end up working in Canada.

    He might also need to upload a will and testament that would limit his burial in a grave to a maximum of fifteen years (enough to let the body rot to the bones) and then have the bones transfered to an ossuary. This would be to help manage land use.

    Oh, and the above would just be to enter the country whether to transit through Canada on a change of flights, visit, or whatever. Since Esperanto is extremely easy to learn, it shouldn't pose too much of a problem to obtain that passport but then we wouldn't need to spend so much money on police, court, medical, and other interpreters and translators since all visitors to Canada with few exceptions would know either English, French, or at least Esperanto (which authorities could master in no time). So easier to manage overall.

    Then with such controls in place, we could even consider allowing a holder of any of these three passports to study, work, or do business in Canada visa-free if we wanted to. Essentially, we'd make it more difficult to come to Canada but easier to remain.

  4. On 7/18/2019 at 9:33 PM, J4L said:

    New polls released show that just over 50% OF Alberta residents would support becoming their own country if Trudeau and the Liberals win the election.

    A landlocked country would need to develop very friendly relations with at least one maritime country. Which one would that be?

  5. On 7/18/2019 at 5:46 PM, The Philosopher said:

    Hi,

    I would like to heard people about what they are thinking about the french fact in Canada

    What do you think about the idea of a Bilingual Canada ?

    Do you think that Pierre Elliott Trudeau was right about that ?

    PS: In this topic I'm asking everybody to be respectful while sharing opinions 

    Thank you

    Which French fact are you referring to? When the AFO, QCGM, and SANB signed a memorandum of understanding to promote official minority language rights, Mathieu Bock-Côté (a French Quebecer) called it treason.

    https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2019/07/06/la-trahison

     

    Of course the AFO challenged that accusation.

    https://l-express.ca/entente-avec-les-anglo-quebecois-pas-de-trahison-des-fhq/

    They've also recently been reminding Quebec of how it opposed minority French-language rights in court as recently as in 2015:

    https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/quebec-raises-ire-of-francophones-in-the-rest-of-canada

    Yet there are some French Canadians outside of Quebec who favour official unilingualism and more linguistic deregulation too.

    The French fact in Canada is extremely complex.

     

  6. 2 hours ago, J4L said:

    That is why school districts do background checks.  They have no way of determining if a school employee is a sexual predator, unless said person has a past committing offenses.  Sexual addiction courses make about as much sense as alcohol and drug addiction courses.  You have to admit to a problem, and want help to have any program like this be of any kind of benefit, and what teacher in their right mind is going to say they are attracted to children, since the consequences would be termination.

    I don't understand. A background check will prove useless against a potential predator who's not hurt anyone yet.

    A sex-addiction course would not require any participant to confess to anything. However, making a person aware of where to turn for help could make him less dangerous.

    For example, if I'm an alcoholic but have never herd of alcoholism or Alcoholics Anonymous before, then firstly, this sense of the problem being unique to me will make it even more embarrasing for me to seek help. Secondly, if I can't even name the problem and can't imagine that help exists for it, then how am I supposed to find help for it?

    By making all prospective teachers aware of the problem, how to identify its symptoms, and where to turn for help, then a prospective teacher in that class might have a Eureka moment when he identifies with these symptoms and might take an interest in the remedies mentioned that he might never have imagined before. He could now name the problem, identify its symptoms, and turn for help before he hurts anyone. He can't get help if he can't even fully identify the problem and is unaware that help exists for it.

  7. 2 hours ago, J4L said:

    No.  Waste of time.

    How so? If it reduces the occurrence of teacher sexual abuse by even 10% let's say, given the lifelong damage it can cause the child, would it not be worth it? Can we reasonably assume that a teacher who may be at risk of abusing a child necessarily knows where to turn for help before he hurts the studend?

    I agree with tough laws and penalties as a second line of deterrence; but for those it fails to deter, a preferable first line might involve teacher education to ensure that a teacher who does need help knows where to turn for help. Simple penalties might be an effective second line of defence, but is a poor first line of defence as we're using it now.

  8. On 6/19/2019 at 11:08 PM, Michael Hardner said:

    WTF are you talking about ?  Is this how to start a thread ?  Make a startling claim but put the word 'given' in front of it ?

     

    "Given that the UFOs are now controlling the bath towel industry perhaps it's time we ...."

    OK, maybe I exaggerated. But given its severity, even if rare, the simple fact that it happens seems to suggest that we should ensure that every prospective teacher knows how to recognize the symptoms of compulsive sexual behaviours and where to turn for help before they hurt someone. We have no way of knowing who the dangerous teacher is until it's too late; so to play it safe, why not ensure they all get the necessary training to know where to turn for help if they need it?

  9. Given the high rates of teachers molesting students in public schools, would it make sense to require every prospective teacher to take a sex-addiction course (maybe a couple hours of their education degree program) to learn the causes, symptoms, and remedies for sex addiction so as to ensure that any teacher who does suffer a compulsive sexual behaviour will know where to turn for help before he ends up molesting a student?

    I agree that tough laws and penalties help to deter potential abusers too, but such laws are of limited use when in many cases, the student will fear reporting the abuser for many reasons. In those cases, ensuring that a teacher who suffers compulsive sexual tendencies knows where to turn for help might help that teacher find the help he needs before he hurts a student.

    This might even apply to any position of authority including therapist, prison guard, etc. before they can obtain their license.

  10. I'll just add here that while I've come across opposition to inquisitorial trials in the past precisely due to their more intrusive  nature into an accused's private life, I'm not talking here about imposing an inquisitorial on him against his will but rather offering it as something he could request.

    If for whatever reason there are embarrassing things he'd like the judge not to know, he could still opt for an adversarial trial, but on the understsnding that while this reduces the judge's powers and increases those of the defence, it increases the power of the prosecutor too, which could be important when the prosecutor may have exculpatory evidence in his possession that the defence cannot access on its own.

    They both have their pros and cons but as a rule of thumb, as long as the accused has nothing embarrassing to hide, he may prefer an inquisitorial trial to get to the bottom of the matter more quickly as long as he's comfortable with giving the judge more intrusive powers to do so.

  11. I have read a number of immigration hearing transcripts in the past and given how both immigration and criminal courts use the adversarial system, I'll assume that some of my observations are transferable. 

    At immigration hearings, it sometimes happens that the counsel for the foreign national wants the Minister's counsel to present more evidence in their possession and the Minister's counsel will refuse. In one case, when the foreign national's counsel asked for the names of the anonymous officers who'd arrested her and written the police reports, the Minister's counsel refused. Essentially, the Minister's counsel served as the gatekeeper to the available evidence and so could choose to present only that evidence that could make the foreign national look guilty while withholding any expulpatory evidence. 

    Given how criminal trials operate under the adversarial system too, I can reasonably conclude that the Crown prosecutor can likewise serve as the gatekeeper to the available evidence in some cases and so present only that evidence that makes the accused look guilty while refusing to present the rest. Remember that the prosecutor is not a neutral party! The good news is that unlike immigration trials that require proof on a balance of probabilities, criminal ones require proof beyond reasonable doubt; but stll, wrongful convictions can occur even then.

    I can say from my observation that if I were ever accused of a crime I had not committed, I'd appreciate the right to an inquisitorial trial on request. I grant that it might give the judge more intrusive powers into my private life; but if I have nothing to hide, I'd appreciate the power it would give him to go over the prosecutor's head to collect evidence himself if need be.  I wouln't want the prosecutor serving as the gatekeeper to the available evidence.

    So, should an accused have the right to an inquisitorial trial on request? I can maybe see some safeguards. For example, the accused who requests an inquisitorial trial might need to sign a document confirming that he fully understands how this could give the judge more powers than he has at an adversarial trial; how while it might diminish the control the prosecutor has over his case, it could also diminish the control that the defense will have over its; and while it could give the judge more power to go over the prosecutor's head to collect evidence that the prosecutor refuses to present, it would also give him more power to go over the defence attorney's head to collect evidence the defence might refuse to present.

    As long as the accused signs off on that understanding and believes  he has nothing to hide; and especially if he has any reason to believe that the prosecutor might refuse to present exculpatory evidence in his possession that the  defence has no access to but that a judge might in an inquisitorial trial, why not grant him the right to an inquisitorial trial on request?

  12. I'll just add here that a woman who's pathologically cautious around men is not necessarily sexist. Maybe she just had bad experiences and acts out her trauma in different ways including by being hyper-vigilant around men. That's normal and I can absolutely understand that. I experienced the same around women. However, there is a difference between that natural reaction and converting it into an ideological belief. I'm sure most women who are hypervigilant around men due to past abuse recognize the source of their caution and do not blame all men but rather are just being cautious.

  13. 1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

    Where are all the moderate men who should be denouncing the extremist man's?

    We're all over the place. Show me one man who'd try to excuse male molesters like the woman in the video above tried to apologize for female molesters. At least the other woman recognized her folly and called her out on it.

    I take that back. Some men do apologize for rape, but other men do call them out on it just like the woman in the video called out the other woman on her molestation apology.

  14. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-june-10-2019-1.5168766/men-need-to-stand-up-and-apologize-for-sexual-abuse-says-vagina-monologues-playwright-eve-ensler-1.5168774

     

    I don't get this idea that men (and only men) should apoligize to women (and only women), and that this will somehow bring down 'the patriarchy.'

    My babysitter molested me when I was a child, yet never did I blame women as a collective for her acts. I recognize that she and not womankind was the perpetrator.

    This doesn't mean that I didn't approach women with an instinctive caution in adulthood, a caution induced by my past trauma I'm sure. It was natural that I would approach women with more caution after such an experience, but that's not the same as converting my trauma into a political ideology around women generally.

    I think we need to avoid making this into a war of the sexes and recognize that this is not a gendered issue. Men abuse men, women, boys, and girls. Women abuse men, women, boys, and girls. To focus exclusively on male abusers and female victims is to politicize a very sensitive issue. Also, given how studies show that many abusers have been abused themselves, to focus only on male abusers and female victims so exclusively is like removing half the tumour to let the other half grow back.

    To be clear, I'm not criticizing her sharing her experiences about her father but rather her comments extending it into gender politics.

  15. When we consider how Federal MP's are expected to write and vote on laws that affect the daily lives of all Canadians, isn't it reasonable for the law to expect them to know at least two languages so as to ensure their access to a wider body of knowledge from which to inform their decisions?

    I'm not necessarily talking here about requiring them to know English and French specifically, but rather any two languages, whether a sign language, the local indigenous language, Chinese, Esperanto, or any other language of their choosing as long as they master at least two languages.

    What would be your thoughts on this?

  16. I'll also add that there's a reason it's extremely important to not shame promiscuous women either. They too might be acting compulsively as a maladaptive behaviour to trauma in some cases, they too might feel too ashamed to seek help, and they too might not even know that help exists and where to find it. Perhaps this is a problem sex ed classes could address, to help students with compulsive sexual behaviours to understand better what might be going on and how they can remedy the situation rather than just teach them that all sex is good and to just put a condom on it.

  17. How do men learn to become really stupid and out of control men? I learnt first from my babysitter for well over a year when I was around seven and eight and then my ex wife for a few years, both sexually far more aggressive than I was even to the point of being aggressively coersive. That, combined with my own character weaknesses, is what finally made me stop caring about my boundaries and I won't deny that I then started to become more sexually coersive myself in turn.

    The part that I lament the most was being too ashamed to tell anyone about my problem and not knowing where to turn for help.

    That's what I meant by not being too judgmental. If a person who suffers such a problem fears being judged or doesn't know where to find help, then how is he to get help? It was sheer luck that finally led me to find help.

    Also, it is false to assume that a trauma victim is necessarily self-aware. Though I recognized that my behaviours were compulsive and couldn't understand why, I somehow never made the connection between my behaviour and my childhood sexual abuse and the abusive relationship with my ex wife until a therapist pointed it out to me years later. I shamefully told him about my behaviour and shamefully asked him to help me with it.

    At first, he asked whether my behaviour bothered me since none of what I was describing was criminal in any way, so I had to explain how I was acting compulsively seemingly against my own will.

    He then started to dig into my past and helped me understand the link between it and my compulsive sexual behaviours. At first, I protested saying that my behaviour was due to my own weak character. He agreed, but then helped me understand how my past experienes contributed to my failing to learn the necessary character traits I needed to adequately defend my boundaries and how repeated failures finally led me to give up trying to defend my boundaries and to then just seek out the physical pleasures of life to fill the void left by the realization of my inability to defend those boundaries.

    He himself was somewhat surprized at the degree to which I'd failed to recognize the link and the degree to which shame kept me from seeking help sooner. Apparently though common in other patients, that shame and lack of self-awareness seemed greater in me than most. As for not seeking help sooner, I had had poor experiences with incompetent therapists prior, so that might have contributed to my not seeking help sooner too.

    That's why I think it is important to ensure men can feel comfortable seeking help and more importantly, know that help exists and where to find it.

  18. 8 hours ago, French Patriot said:

    Because Canadians are not stupid and know that the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

    Have you not noticed the stats dropping on their own thanks to education and contraception?

    Men are the problem and if you have heard or read of the material titled, The  Demise of Guys, you will see just how badly we are letting our young generation of boys and men down.

    If you are serious about cleaning up our mess on the issues under discussion, your efforts, I think, might be better spent on the problem that research points to. It is an eye opener. 

    Regards

    DL

    Yes, society is letting our men down. When society promotes sexual liberation as some fundamental human right, you end up with hosts of irresponsible men sleeping around with no understanding of the consequences. It's time we stop teaching men about rights and start teaching them about responsibility but in a non-judgmental way. This must include also teaching men how to recognize problems and where to turn for help when they need it.

    For example, some men may turn to compulsive promiscuity (a potential source of unwanted pregnancies) as a maladaptive coping mechanism for trauma yet might not recognize it since we're taught that that's just how men are.

    I was lucky in one regard. Prior to meeting my ex-wife, I suffered compulsive masochistic auto-sexual behaviours that I struggled with (which I learnt with the help of a therapist many years later probably stemmed from my  childhood abuse). I initially thought the behaviour was just a biological need ingrained in my mind (though I still didn't discuss it with anyone and preferred to keep it to myself) but recognized that it might not be such a need as I seemed to gradually 'need' it less over time.

    At least I was mostly in control of my intersexual behaviours as long as I avoided situations that could make me vulnerable to coercion (since even the mildest coercion could trigger panic attacks that tempted me to submit to the aggressor just to escape those nauseating emotions). I knew my weakness so took appropriate precautions like refusing to meet a woman alone and especially in private until she gained my trust that she would respect my boundaries.

    I let my guard down with my now ex-wife one day and that led to an extremely abusive relationship for a few years after which I did turn to compulsive promiscuity as a maladaptive coping mechanism for trauma.

    Now here's why I was lucky. I remembered how prior to meeting her, not only could I manage my intersexual behaviours but was slowly learning to manage my more violently masochistic compulsive autosexual behaviours too. In other words, even though I hadn't yet made the connection between my childhood experiences and my compusive masochistic sexual behaviours and even though I didn't understand their source, I could see that my behaviour was slowly improving. My self-confidence was slowly improving along with it. I was aware that I was healing even if I didn't understand the disease.

    After that abusive relationship, I started to participate in ever more compulsive masochistic sexual behaviours with different women. Though I failed to link that behaviour to the abusive relationship, to recognize that I was suffering trauma (that I understood only years later with the help of a therapist), and to understand why I was behaving that way, I could at least recognize that it was not normal behaviour by contrasting it to my behaviour before I'd met my now ex-wife, and that at least gave me hope that I could change. My main obstacles were shame and ignorance. I felt shame at my behaviour so didn't tell anyone close to me and my ignorance prevented me from understanding the source of the behaviour, that I was not alone, and that help did exist. I eventually found help purely by accident.

    Had I ended up in an abusive relationship with my ex-wife immediately after leaving my parents, I would never have experienced the brief healing period between leaving home and meeting my now ex wife and so would have had nothing positive to contrast my later behaviours with. This could potentially had led me to believe that my compulsive sexual behaviours were just normal. It was that brief healing period after leaving my childhood home that helped me understand the pathology of my later behaviour and so at least recognize that I needed help even if I didn't yet understand the disease and where to turn for help, but that awareness made me recognize and seek help once I finally found it.

    A man who'd never experienced a brief healing period prior might not even recognize that he has a problem at all.

    Compulsive promiscuity is not normal, healthy, well-adjusted behaviour and generally reveals an underlying problem. Unfortunately, our society teaches it as perfectly normal and healthy behavour under the name of sexual liberalization.

    That's why I think instead of banning abortion, we should focus instead on addressing the causes of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

  19. 4 minutes ago, French Patriot said:

    Why so many single moms? Because men will not step up to do what women do, which is take responsibility for their actions.

    As to your main theme of coercion. There is none with consenting adults.

    The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation and all you are proposing is a low level stoning for fornicators, while ignoring that they are lovers or at least well acquainted in most cases.

    Shall we go back to when men were stoned to death for sex between consenting adults? 

    Why not just do as the Muslims do and beat the fuck out of women for just being desirable and irresistible to weak minded men?

    Regards

    DL

    Sodomy was illegal in Canada until the  1960's, yet not one person was ever charged, let alone convicted, whenever it involved two consenting adults in a private room with neither reporting the other to the police. Why do you think that was?

    I'm under no ilkusion that a law against fornication would end it. Just like in the case of the old sodomy laws, the police would have no way of knowing whenever it involves two consenting adults neither of whom reports it to the police.

    I'm also under no illusion that it would end abortions.

    However, I do believe that it would greatly reduce rates of sexual coercion and assault. If one parrner reports the other, the police would only need to prove he consented, not that the other didn't consent, so a stronger deterrent and that would at least reduce the commonality of abortions.

    Also, I'd have no problwm with scanning my ID card and fingerprint at a casino if it could keep a gambling addict out of prostitution and so again reduce the rate of abortions.

    Even if abortions remain legal, we should still try to at least reduce their occurrence.

  20. 6 minutes ago, French Patriot said:

    If they did want to protect that right, and their children, it is not shown when 50% of all households are manned by single women.

    I think women can do a better job of protection reproduction than deadbeat dads, given the vile male history.

    Regards

    DL

    So why so many single moms? If it's because of too many cases of sexual coercion (whether men coercing women or vice versa), then making fornication an offence punishable by a heavy fine that doubles for each repetition of the offence could serve as a more effective deterrent given how much easier it is to prove than assault and other forms of coercion. Such a law might deter some cases of careless sex too.

    If it's because of too many addicts selling sex, then more effective regulation of the gambling, alcohol, and nicotine industries could help people out of addiction.

    And for the record, I do believe that even if a woman coerces a man into sex or even sexually assaults him, he should still accept responsibility for the child not because the assault was his fault, but just because he's the father.

    Like I said, I'm less concerned with banning abortion and more concerned with reducing the rate of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

    Sexual assaults and other forms of coercion are too difficult to prove on their own. Given the social harms of promiscuity (STI's, unwanted pregnancies, trauma from assaults, divorce, brokenn families, distressed children, etc.(it would make sence to toughen our sex laws. I disagree with the idea that sex is a fundamental right. Our laws treat it as equal to a walk in the park. Sex has consequences and so our laws should reflect that.

×
×
  • Create New...