Machjo

Everything you say above is quite legitimate in my opinion. I generalized ideas about certain groups too based on past experience, but am still aware of my prejudices and counteract them by consciously giving each an equal chance to prove himself. You do the same it seems. perhaps just a misunderstanding then. Of course we all have prejudices, as long as we're aware of them and make a consicous effort to overcome them, which I do all the time, and by what you've typed, you do the same too. I see no problem with that. You still gave him his chance to prove himself and he failed on his own merits. I also fully agree that communication is important, and as such it's the responsibility of the candidate to possess a strong command of the company's official or de facto language of internal administration along with whatever other language the company might expect from the immigrant. And I fully agree that that is a legitimate criteria. Clear communication is too important in any organization.

What about the UNHCR's decision concerning a special status for Catholic over other religious education in Ontario? Do we boycott products from Ontario too? I think the UN has criticized Quebec for Bill 101 and Canada for its treatment of First Nations too, though I have to confirm that. But if so, then should Canadians ban Canadian products too and just buy Swedish? How do we know that boycotting Chinese products benefits the Chinese people more than it hurts them? I don't know, yet undecided on that, and maybe you can convince me. I've heard the argument that part of that money goes to Chinese taxes. True. But part of that tax money also goes towards public education, health care, etc. too, and not all the money goes to taxes, some going to salaries for otherwise unemployed workers. Also, if the argument is strictly human rights, then where do we draw the line and say that though the UNHCR has criticized Canada for human rights violations, ours are les serious than China's? Where de we draw that line, or do we make an exception for ourselves? Of instead of focussing on whether a nation has violated human rights, do we focus instead on whether its situation is improving? if so, then China, though behind Canada in human rights, has none-the-less made greater improvements than Canada in recnt years in that while Canada has few human rights violations on record with the UNHCR, there's been little improvement; whereas China's grievous human rights violations have been in slow improvement day by day. Again, I'm not saying I'm right and your wrong, as you can see from all the question marks above. These are just quesitons I have. Interesting. I look at the ingredients for each product too, but never to see where it's made, but rather whether it's vegan. So I suppose it would automatically exclude fois gras wherever it might be made. One thing I could agree to though would be something akin to the Green Shift proposed by the Green Party. This would atuomatically make part of the cost of a product more or less proportionally linked to the distance it's had to be transported to the market. But that more to preserve our resources than to keep our spending in Canada, though obviously that could be an added bonus to some degree by default.

I'm sorry. Maybe I'm just not the sharpest cookies this evening, but I don't see the relationship between my post about the distinction between competitiveness and efficiency on the one hand, and your post about immigrants on the other. Granted it's mostly my fault since my post went off topic whereas your is helping to bring it back on topic, but I'm still curious as to the relationship you saw there that I somehow missed. Again, sorry if I don't follow your meaning in your post.

It's equally fallacious to assume that a private system is necessarily more adversarial than a public one. Parliament is public. Courts are public. yet all are adversarial and thus inefficient. The current public health system is more collaborative, granted, but provided the right structures, it could be just as collaborative in the private sector too. Going back to the example with the cigarette companies. Though the government had made them more efficient by reducing advertising competition, they still remained private enterprises. In theory at least, I'm sure the appropriate legal framework could be presented to create a private collaborative health-care structure.

This is a common misassumption in the West, and both capitalists and socialists are often guilty of it. Competition is not necessarily synonymous with efficiency. I remember reading one report that had suggested that government restrictions on cigarette advertising had actually helped the tobacco industry, and here is why: If one cigarette company spent much money on advertising, all others had no choice but to match its spending or lose its share of the market, In this respect, competition was actualy a drain on the resources of the companies involved since the advertising spending was no longer to increase the market share, but simply to maintain it. Advertising could only increase the market effectively if it can monopolise it. Otherwise, all advertising simply neutralized each other. Once the govenrment intervened and restricted advertizing, then all cigarette companies could reduce their spending proportionally to each other, save money, and still each keep their share of the market since spending on advertising woudl have dropped proportionately on all sides. In this respect, government intervention to restrict such competition actually helped all of the companies involved. We find that in saturated markets too. Those companies that try to compete with each other not only hurt one another but themselves too in a competitive market. The company that simply decides to specialize instead can thus duck out of the competition and create its own niche, thereby not wasting precious resources on competition, but instead developing its own niche market while either letting the other companies have the rest of the market or even entering into collaboration with certain companies in a symbiotic relationship. In fact, symbiotic companies can sometimes fare better than competitive ones since they can then ride on the backs of the success of other companies, and even receive help from other companies if it's determined that one company's success can benefit the other's. For example, a hotel might enter into colaboration with a restauraneur, a professional spa compay, etc. and ask them to move into the hotel to increase business, or allow them to rent some floors. Manydeparment stores will also enter into agreements with restaurants to move in to along the same principles of a symbiotic relationship. Now capitalists are not the only ones guilty of confusing competitiveness with efficiency either. The socialist notion of confrontational labour uniions is likewise highly inefficient. Obviously, during a lock out or strike, nothing is being produced, thus both sides suffer. The examples above are but some of which show the fallacy in the asumption that confrontational systems are necessarily more efficient. If anything, collaboration is more efficient than confrontation as resources are redirected towards production rather than competition.

I wold define racism as a belief, consciour or subconsious, in the moral superiority of one race over others. On that basis, I'm quite certain the majority of Canadians are at least moderately racist. I would consider your above paragraph to be not racist, but rather geocentrist. You say skin colour doesn't bother you, but you'd still prefer people acculturated to European cultural norms in a broad sense. Thankfully that doesn't spill over into your beliefs about hring practices, but what about immigration? Well, Middle Easterners look more or less like us already anyway, but I suppose you have stereotpes about that region. When you didn't hire that person, was it because of his behaviour alone, or did the behaviour of others of the same part of the world influence your perception of him? And even if he were sexist in some way, would that affect your view of the next candidate from that part of the world, or would you ust judge each candidate on his own merits? For example, let's say one is a progressive-minded Middle-Easterner who belives in the equality of men and women and would have no issue with a female boss, and the other is a traditionalist Anglo who believes women should stay at home and keep house, and would not appreciate being under a woman in the chain of command. Which would you hire?

You misread me. It doesn't even have to be a girl. I've known one case of a Canadian girl used that way. And no, I'm not suggesting that Immigration Canada decide based on appearance either. All I'm saying is that acting tough on immigration is someting we need to do BEFORE the person enters Canada's borders. Once we let them in, we should then make it as easy as possible for them to get thei citizenship and get on with their lives. If they're not immigration material then let's not let them in in the first place, rather than let them in and then make their lives miserable as that is more likely to push them towards illegal marriages.Once they're in, getting their papers shold be a quick process. In fact, we should think that if they've passed the initial tests in their countries to be let in, then they should be thought of as more than qualified to get their citizenship. Not the other way around. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding there.

I'm for capital punishment with the option of life imprisonment or even life of exile from a local community, for murder and certain other crimes, leaving it up tothe judge to decide based on circumstances. If for instance, the murder fell just short of being legitimate self-defense (e.g. constant and emotionally vicious though never physically threatening harrassment from the victim or some other thing along those lines), if it's believed the murderer would likely never have committed the crime otherwise and has a spotless record and many character witnesses on his behalf, and regrets it sincerely, etc., proof of the vicious harrasment, etc., then life of exile from the city of the murder might be appropriate. In other cases, life imprisonment might be preferable if the person cold be of use to society still in some way, special skill, etc. and wants to make up for his crime to society, etc.For the rest, dath is appropriate. I support execution if motivated by justice, but totally oppose it if motivated by vengeance. The objective should simply be to set an example for the rst of society, not vengeance. And of course execution should be humane. For example, perhaps a law that it must be done within 48 hours of the verdict, otherwise it immediately converts to life imprisonment, on the grounds that it's not fair to have them on death row for months on end. Yes, there is always a risk of a false verdict. But that alone is not reason to stop it. If we follow the principle of reasonable proof, then that should limit it considerably. Innocent errors would certainly be a shame, but there are ways to minimize the chances. As for religious questions, I belive turning the other cheek applies to individuals, not the body politic. While we shold pray for forgivness, the body politic is responsible to maintian justice. All this being said, I wold not trust a gung ho politician to re-introduce the death senense motivated by vengeance. If so, that would be a surefire way to guarantee alot of innocent deaths.

Another point for those who don't care about immigrants' rights. By making it more difficult for an immigrant to enter Canada and making it easier for them to stay in Canada, we're not only protecting the best interests of the immigrants themselves, but of Canadians too. I've known some Canadians who'd fallen in the trap of marriages for citizenship. Needless to say they were enraged at their spouces for it. I knew of one in Victoria who'd committed suicide over it. And another I'd met in Montreal who was quite emotionally, and thus financially, devastated as a result. And needless to say that devastated Canadians are generally not productive in the economy. As for those immigrants, yes, I fully agree we shold kick them out pronto. But there are a few problems with it: 1. From the few cases I'd known, only one had 'reported' it to Immigration Canada, and that was the one who'd done so via his suicide letter. The others just sucked it in. After all, under emotional duress a person doesn't always think rationally and may just run away from the divorce and never want to face it again. So those immigrants will likely stay in spite of the law, so such a law though useful on occasion won't be so useful in most cases. 2. If we make it easier for immigrants to enter Canada and then make it more difficult for them to stay, we are then contributing to this problem. No, I'm not excusing the behaviour of such scumbags, but it's still common sense that such policies will likely promote more such behaviour which, needless to say, is harmful to Canada's economy by reducing productivity and potentially increasing pressure on social services for those who wre once employed and economically function who then have to fight depression, legal battles, possibly for children, etc. And they're not immigrants. So definitely, it's not after they enter the country that we are to decide whether to kick them out or not.Once in, they're in. It's before they come that we should screen them. We should be more lenient once they're in.

I fully agree with you. On compassionate grounds to the immigrant or refugee, while we can certainly debate the merits and demerits of whether to let them enter the country, I think it should go without saying that once we've let them in, that's not the time to make their lives difficult. If we don't want them here, then we shouldn't let them in in the first place. Once in, they start to establish themselves, to find an apartment to rent, work, make friends, get used to the local community, etc. Though they may not be citizens, they are still humans deserving of respect and compassion. If we turn them away at the embassy before they set foot on Canadian soil, their lives won't be too disturbed; they'll just have wasted a few hours at an interview. But if we kick them out after having let them in, then for all we know they may have spent much of their life savings just ot get here already. They may have quit their jobs at home to find new work here, etc. As human beings, they still have basic rights.

I'd be in favour of the death penalty for murder and arson, and possibly certain other crimes, all with the option of life imprisonment, as per the judge's good judgement taking various factors into account. However, I question the motives of the OP. If the motive is justice, I support it. if the motive is vengeance, then no. As for the risk of executing an innocent, yes, the risk is always there, but so it is for any other crime. That alone is not a reason to execute justice if there is evidence to find him guilty beyond resonable doubt. For the sake of fairness to the convict, though, I would say that any such judgement would need to be carried out within 48 hours at most, since it's goal should still not be to traumatize him, but merely to set an example to the rest of society. As such, if it cannot be carried out within 48 hours, the execution should be called off, and it automatically converts to life imprisonment, the objective being to not torture the convict indefinitely making him spend months on end on death row. As for religious concerns, I don't believe 'turn the other cheek' applies to the government. Yes, as individuals, we are to forgive our neighbour. But as a society, the body politic is there to carry out justice.

An established church could arguably have certain advantages as a foundation for a common civic religion and thus serve as a contributing factor in the establishment of a common culture, as long as it limits itself to that. I wouldn't mind that my children be required to study the Bible as secular literature. But I'm not raising my kids Christian and don't intend to. I would have an issue with imposed religious education. I And of course I'll raise my children in the religion of my choice and practice the religion of my choice. Establishing the Christian Faith as the national religion and teaching the Bible in school as literature would merely serve to give us a common point of reference in religious discussions, nothing more.

I got the impression from your previous post that you were suggesting that cultural shift had begun only after the French and the British wre already established. I was pointing out that the very establishment of those communities was itself a cultural shift. My apologies if I'd misunderstood you there.

Exactly. We don't oppose immigrant terrorists. We oppose terrorists ful stop, be they native born evangelical white Anglosaxon terrorists or otherwise.

And this might reveal who we are as a people. I'd rather we sink proudly into oblivion than to stoop to victory. I practice this phylosophy in my own private life too, and yes I've been burned more than a few times by it, and yet still can't get around to stooping to avoid getting burned yet again.

And it sure is better to conquer and pillage our way to victory than to go extinct while sticking to our principles?

Ifwe had clearly-defined objectively measurable criteria posted on-line, we could likely end this problem. All one would have to do is look at the site and check off all the criteria he can prove to meet one by one. If any can't be checked, that's it. He can't get in.

But why should it matter that they come from a 'source' country? An immigrant is an immigant, and even the Chinese labourers on the Trans-Canada railway had worked hard to put their mark on history. Are they to be any less recognized than the Jesuit immigrants who led to the establishment of the residential schools? I'd they they should be much more respected. Country of origin has nothing to do with it.

Fair enough. On a world scale, it might or might not be. I've witnessed various manifestations of racism abroad too. However, I can still say that, high or low, probaly a majority of Canadians are racist. Majority has a clear definition, more than 50%. Also, I dont think we should compare ourselves to other countries. If we do that, then we drop to their level. Look what happened in the US in their war on terror, with imprsonment without trials, torture, etc. If our goal is to be little better than the rest, then we'll soon follow a race to the bottom. As far as I'm concerned, one instance of racism is one too many.

I wasn't referring to me specifically, but rather general education concerning respect for all peoples regardless of race. I've had black family in law, and the horror stories I'd heard from just one family, along with my own witnessing of some events, along with stories I'd hear from their friends, along with racist comments I've heard about immigrants over the years, leads me to believe that the majority of Canadians are probably at least moderately racist.

I'm just going by my own personal obsevations of Canadian society. I coud be wrong, but I don't believe that we need to sensor our beleifs about our society just to show our false sense of patriotism. That's not what patriotism is about.

Ah justice schmustice. What do yu think we are? Canadian?

There could be simple solutions to this: 1. Require a stringent English or French test. This would eliminate the need for the federal LINC programme (http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/goc/linc.shtml) 2. Require an applicant to either have a busines partner or empoyer who's signed to take responsibility for him until he can prove his ability to stand on his own two feet in Canada. 3. Family class could be judged also from the current immigrant himself. If let's say his taxes are high enough that it would be more beneficial forus to accept the costs for that new family member than for us to lose that tax money, then we could make an exception, though that would mean that he could only take in so many family class members depending on his value to Canadian society. Yet even then, some criteria that should never be sacrificed are a criminal record check and language competence. While we may be willing to accept some costs on the grounds that the sponsor is making an exceptional tax or other contribution to Canada well beyond the average taxpayer, we're still not prepared to babysit them either none-the-less.

So if I break into an old woman's apratment, beat her to death and take her stuff and don't get caught, then morally that's fair game because she couldn't defend herself?

Common sense. If he doesn't want strangers infringing on his territory, then he should put a sign up to make it clear. We have one outside saying 'no solisitors'. That doesn't stop us from having guests over though, and we certainly wold not approciate the government telling us whom we can or cannot invite to our home.