Machjo

Je suis bien content d'entendre ça. Alors, comment familier est-tu avec la culture canadienne-française?

Yup. I'm smart enough that when abroad (and I have worked abroad) to respect the local laws, and not travel through a warzone.

I can agree with some point in this: 1. Government should neither oppose nor promote multiculturalism. Government should just stay out of it beyond establishing sommon cultural norms. And I certainly agree that a person ought to be required to pass certain objecive criteria, including a knowledge of the local language, before even setting foot on Canadian soil. One point though, the government does not feed most of them. In Vancouver, I'd met restauranteurs who knew neither English nor French who were working nevertheless. My issue though is with cultural integration. Economically they're not necessarily a burden on us. But culturally they do divide the community if they don't even know the local language, let alone culture.

But we won't throw all Arabs in prison, avoid all jocks in sight before even getting close to them, etc. And what does it have to do with maths?

Incorrect. If by'ghetto' you mean distinct cultures, then the First Nations and the Inuit alone consisted of many nations. And cultural shift did not begin after the arrival of the French and the British. It began with the arrival of the French and the British. We ourselves have been contributors to this cutural shift.

Borg, I'm starting to get the impression that you believe that Canada had been wall-to-wall caucasian since the time of Adam and Eve and that suddenly, once Trudeau was in power, poof, out of nowhere Canada suddenly had all these cultures to contend with. Multi-culturalism in Canada is nothing new. Have you ever read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. His first chapter elaborates on the cultural diversity of the Roman Empire of the time. All large territorial bodies throughout history have always been multicultural. Even smaller ones like Poland. Did you know China has 56 officially recognized ethnic groups? Here's a picture of a typical Western Chinese girl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uyghur_girl.jpg In fact, did you know that in Eastern China, such people are sometimes discriminated against and thought of as thieves? Russia, India, Arabic countries, they're all bursting at the seems with different cultural groups. The question is, how they handle it. Some handle it well, others don't. But the fact is that human migration has been going on ever sinse the first man started on a treck for better pastures. Nothing new under the sun.

Just the Firt Nations and Inuit alone can be divided into many distinct cultural communities, each with their own language and culture, and possibly spiritual paths. Then some Vikings arrived on the East coast in around AD1000. Then in 1497 John Cabot explored the Atlantic Coast. Jaques Cartier in 1534. Soon afterwards, colonization begins. Then the Franco-British Wars. Then futher colonization from all over Europe, soon to be followed African slaves, and by Asians (remember the chinee building the Trans-Canada Railway). Then large-scale migration after the European Wars again. When has there not been constant cultural shifts going on on this continent for the last 400 years and more? Essentially cultural change and immigation is now a part of a well-established tradition going back hundreds of years on this continent. It certainly did not just appear when Trudeau showed up. Looking at it that way, trying to stop immigration is anti-traditionalist, ironically enough.

And somebody actually voted to introduce racial criteria. Should I be surpised?

I can agree with the point that Canada has never had a common culture, and that has always been a problem. In that repect, we can't blam Trudeau for it. All he'd done was acknowlede it, though he did make things worse by doing that. Instead, he should have acknowledged that Canada needs to develop a common culture. This I agree with too. If our government sticks its nose in other countries' affairs, then it's asking for a response from us. If the government takes a side, then so do we, and in a democracy, there's no guarantee it'll be the same side. This is what the UN is for. If the feds have an issue with another country, bring it up at the UN and deal with it through the UN according to UN resolutions. There's still plenty of racism in Canada today. As for respecting individual cultures, I can agree with that, and I think the intentions of multiculturalism were good. But it was flawed in that while we can each bask in our own individual cultures, a common culture is also needed to allow us to understand one another. This balance between multiculturalism and national integration can only be achieved through biculturalism in the individual culture and the national one. Canadians can live wherever they want, but once outside our borders, they're responsible to fend for themselves and find their own way home. No freedom without responsibility. They go hand in hand.

I could agree with the principle that once abroad, a Canadian citizenis on his own. Travel at your own risk and buy insurance. As for the Tamil Tigers, if our government was taking sides in that war, then I could see passions flaring up. But if our government is minding its own business re: Sri lanka, then the Tamils need to accept that it's not our fight. As for 'multi-culturalism', any country needs a common coulture. Sure it's possible for people to be bicutural in the national culture plus their own. But to have no common culture leads to chaos, and that's wha we're witnessing now. We have many cultures, but no common culture.

Then I apologize if there was a misunderstanding before. I do agree that to be fair to the candidates, we do have a responsibility and a duty towards them to inform them on government website in both English and French of the precicely defined objective standards that must be met to enter Canada. This way, before paying the fees for the interview and tests, etc., he can know in advance by looking at whether or not he meets said criteria. Also, this avoids problems down the road. If he's refused entry, we have the duty to inform him of why he's been refused along with a referense to the website to check it out for himself. If he meet the criteria, then he knows even before the interview that he'll be accepted. The textbook for the test could be offered in pdf format along with practice tests. It's up to the applicant to prepare, and no preference is given to anybody, and no quotas. Very simple and straightforard. He meets the objective and high standards, he gets in. He doesn't, he doesn't. Simple as that. And as for refugees, we should only accept what is required of us in international agreements we may have signed before, no more. We respect our obligations and agreements, but no more than that.

I could certainly agree with a criminal record check as part of the criteria, and it probably is already anyway, or so it ought to be. As for refugees, I'd limit it to those fleeing from existentialist persecution, not actionalist. If a person is persecuted for his Faith or what he is, then yes. But if he's persecuted for what he's done or for his involvement in political activities, no matter how noble the cause, then no, otherwise it's too easy for a person to purposely go out of his way to try to attract persecution to himself as a pretext to immigrate.

Lack of moral education?

I wasn;t comaring it to any other country in particular. I'm sure it's quite high in other countries too. But the fact that it's high abroad still doesn't make it right.

Well, if you know your history, you also know that the British and the French weren't originally indigenous to this land.

As for the uncle driving, he'd said that it only happened when he was wearing a baseball cap. So he was driving badly only then? As for the job offer, he'd never gotten the interview; they'd just said flat out that the job had been taken, even though after his friend had checked, it was still available. What? the employer could know his qualifications just by looking at him? Now he's a computer technician working for the government. As for the family, yes it had problems, but nothing warranting the treatment they got. They were all either working at good jobs or in university paid for by their parents. By the way, except for the uncle, none of them were even Canadian citizens, but international students spending their parents' money in Canada to go to school. Canada could only benefit economically from them. As for entitlement, of course some blacks are to blame for their problems, just as it is for some whites. I'm just saying though that racism clearly plays a partial role. Not the only thing to blame, and yes some blacks abuse this. But for some, it is a legitimate argument. Racism is high in canada without a doubt.

OK, now this is where there might have been a misunderstanding. I certainly oppose any kind of quota, be it based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc. Essentially, it should be an objective standard that all applicants must meet. He who meets it, meets it; he who doesn't, doesn't. Of course this would limit immigration to English and French speaking applicants, thus meaning that we'd be accepting more immigrants from former British or French colonies, naturrally. This would not necessarily be based on race though. As I'd mentioned before, a Phillipino is more 'Americanized' in terms of language, education, religion and culture than even a German on average. this would naturally mean that we'd likely get more immigrants from Hong Kong than Macao, or Jamaica than Algeria, simply owing to the language test. Having said that, though, if an individual Phillipino's English is poor and has minimal education, while a German is fluent in English or French and has an engineering degree, certainly we should accept the German and not the Phillipino. Again, he who meets the standards gets in, the rest don't. It ought to be completely colour-blind. The furthest that I could tolerate race-based preference might be if two candidates are equally qualified for a job and so we give it to the visible minority. But that should only come as a tie-breaker... and even that is something I'd feel uncomfortable with. I'm just saying that if we are going to give any race-based preference, that's the furthest we should go.

Just two points about claiming one's view has popular support as one's main defence: 1. I don't believe in the democratic view of knowledge. Majority support for 1 + 1 = 3 still doesn't make it 3. 2. I believe most Canadians are racist. I don't have statistics to back it up, but based on my observation with black friends and the horror stories I've heard fromthem, my own observations of how some have been treated, election results and popular support for things like Indian reservations, our attitude towards Canadian history (i.e. it started when the white man appeared, etc.), etc. gives me the impression that most Canadians are racist. Possibly moderately so, but racist none-the-less.

I fully agree. Just look at the mess the British and French muskets brought onto the First Peoples of this land.

You're pulling our legs, right. I'm sure a few Japanese are stupid when it comes to maths, just as I;m sure some tall and healthy West Africans couldn't care less about basketball. You are puling our legs, right?

That's why I'd started by 'If we insist'. Read my post before that one for my preferred option.

There you go, ban fois gras on compassionate grounds? Bear in mind though that we'd have to stop producing it too.

But if we insist on retaliating, then let's at least make it on parallel grounds. For instance, they argue that they're banning sealskins on compassionate grounds. So if we're to retaliate, we'd need to find an issue on which they are also being cruel towards animals and ban that product in parallel, otherwise it would be mocked as just a childish tit-for-tat response. Can anyone think of any compassion-based retaliation that would be worthy of a fit retaliation? I don't know, how do they kill their frogs in France, or what about the Bull Festivals in Spain? Maybe we could nail them on something there?

And what practical benefit would retaliation for the sake of retaliation bring us?

Sorry, I don't know what happened there. Anyway, it's fixed now. Strange though. In the other thread we were reading some pretty racist comments about immigrants, yet when the question is posed directly in a poll, they quickly shy away.