Machjo

Certainement pas en anglais, en français et en espéranto. Je dois admettre par contre qu'autant que je puisse parler the mandarin, je ne peux pas encore le lire sauf pour quelques idéogrammes. Et toi?

I haven't read this thread beyond the first post yet, but just to comment, how many more crimes are caught today? I remember my mother mentioning that when she was younger, one man in Ottawa was also collecting welfare from both Ottawa and Toronto, double dipping essentially. With modern technology today, that would be much more difficult. So how much of it has to do with more crimes just being caught today compared to before?

First off, for all we know there may very well be a policy to shoot Russian trespassers out of the sky; it's just that it has not been needed yet since they'd not yet trespassed. Secondly, of what use is a nuclear deterrent if there is no intention of using it? So, are you suggesting a pointless money-wasting nuclear deterrent we'd never intend to use, or one we would use if certain conditions were met? And what would be those conditions? And considering the costs involved in maintaining such weapons, where do you propose we get the money from? More big government?

Good point. If a Canadian military aircraft should enter Russian airspace and get blown out of the sky, that would be well within Russia's rights. Now for humanitarian reasons, it would be nice for Russia to first engage the aircraft over the radio waves to ensure the pilot is aware he's just entered Russian airspace and is not in need of assistance of any kind, but once it's established that that's not the case, then absolutely Russia would be well within its rights to down that aircraft and bring the issue up at the UN General Assembly to have the international community condemn Canada's act of aggression. The same should apply reciprocally if a Russian aircraft should enter Canadian airspace. Then again, as far as I'm concerned, Canada should cease and desist from such activities if it is indeed doing such. After all, how can we criticize Russia if we're the one's provoking it. Granted Russia is no better for simply childishly reciprocating rather than just bringing the issue up at the UN; but if we're doing it, then we're birds of the same feather and so deserve each other.

Hmmm... let's see now. Russia has about 10 times Canada's population. That means it has ten times the taxpayers. That means for us to have as powerful a military force as the Russians, we'd have to spend ten times more per capita than the Russians would, thus putting a fair bit more pressure on our economy than the Russians would experience. And if we consider that Russia itself nearly bankrupted itself to build such a force, we'd certainly bankrupt ourselves in trying to match them with a tenth of the population (and thus taxpayer) base. We can draw a similar parallel to the US. Since the US too has about 10 times Canada's population, and has also sacrificed its economic well-being in achieving the military supremacy it has today, and that's with ten times the taxpayer base, it would be insane for us to try to match them. The argument that Canada needs to have a military that can match any other is fallacious at best. An extreme equivalent would be like a country with the population base of the Republic of San Marino trying to have as big a military force as the US, when chances are the US military has more members than the Republic of San Marino has citizens.

First off we must bear in mind that the Russian aircraft have never yet entered Canadian airspace, thus they had technically gone as far as international law would permit. That said, such moves, even if technically legal, are still provocative and morally inappropriate. I can see two solutions: 1. As a short-term solution, warn Russia that should any of its military aircraft enter Canadian airspace without our consent, we will destroy it; and 2. Open a dialogue with Russia to find out why it's doing this; and Canadian ought to have a right to know too. 3. Consult with Canadians, based on whatever we learn from 3. above, on what the next step ought to be.

Kind of hard not to. You'd have to be pretty dumb not to feel smarter after reading that trash.

I see. Thanks for a glimpse into how your mind works.

Oh pity. It's too bad those savages never learnt the Queen's English. Oh well... oh dear, it's tea time, I'd better get a move on, and after that off to the cricket matches. If only we'd colonized them just a little longer they'd have learnt well, just like how Robinson Crusoe had taught Man Friday well. Oh well, ta for now.

None if it's not taxpayer-funded.

Japanese Canadians had nothing to do with Japan. Even the Canadian military had stated that they were not a threat to Canadian national security. Yet for reasons of political expediency we put them in camps anyway because that's what the Canadian people wanted, right or wrong, even though it had no strategic military value at all, the only value being political pandering to the electoral base. I see the same here.

Harper is one MP with one vote. There is only so much damage he can do.

To we defeat the enemy by becoming the enemy we so despise. Brilliant.

I don't know if I agree to tax dollars being spent on a multi-lingual TTC help line (everyone ought to know the local language), but if the administrative language of the local government is English, and we're talking mainly about private-sector bilingualism allowing Torontonians to exploit world markets that would not otherwise be accessible to them, then what's the issue?

Just a clarification for everyone here. A veil does not necessarily cover the face. In fact, I chose that word purposely owing to the fact that, unlike words such as 'hijab', 'niqab', and 'burqa' which clearly reference apparel of a particular cultural influence, the English word 'veil' can be much more broadly defined. I don't know what gave everyone the idea that by veil I was necessarily referring to the Arab or Persian kind. After all, Roman Catholic nuns wear veils, and even western department stores sell them too, though they are usually referred to as scarves.

Just to clarify by the way, the veil is not the same as the burqa or the niqab.

In the poll, I've distinguished between those who wear the veil for religious reasons and those who wear it for secular reasons since I believe there are some in here wold would likely make that distinction and just want to see if my hunch is right. For those who weren't aware, there are in fact non-Muslim women, perhaps even some who have no religion at all, who do wear the veil. There is one example here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0SsYD2yRsk And here's another video of a non-Muslim hijabi and her reasons why, along with photos of beautiful hijab styles, regardless of the religion or faith of the wearer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXLp2DFO-CU&feature=related I'm curious to see where this poll will go. Enjoy.

Which is more offensive: a woman wearing a burka in Canada or a man wielding an M16 or C7 rifle with a radio pack on his back and fighter jets flying overhead? Seems like a double standard there. If 'they' can tolerate our army on 'their' soil, we can certainly welcome the hijab at least, no? And what about non-Muslims who wear veils for secular reasons?

Not all Muslims are fanatics any more than all Christians are members of the KKK.

First off, by referring to the hijab as a towel, you're already indicating that you're not interested in any serious exchange of ideas but merely intend to take the opportunity to insult your fellow man. How does her hijab hurt you in any way? Now as for some of her views, yes I agree that they are despicable; yet when was the last time you suggested the KKK 'go home'? I'd met at least one First Nations Muslim. So, where is her home? Your references to Muslims 'going home' stinks of racism to me when I consider that Islam is a religion and not a nationality, with may Muslims being born in Canada and some adopting Islam later in life. You are suggesting that anyone who should practice this religion is no longer Canadian and is a foreigner regardless that his parents may trace their lineage to before the Europeans even set foot on North American soil.

Very hard to control. Also, from a basic principle of justice, if the government pays for one person's higher education, it must pay for everybody's or no-one's. Politically paying for everyone's is a no go, and payng only for specific professions is a no-go too, unless of course you transform Medicare into something like the military, whereby straight after highs school one signs up to join the Provincial Ministry of Health, after which he receives his training and must then serve in the system for a period of time as per the contract. But then if you do that, many would complain why not do the same with the Ministry of education or other ministries for example.

Not being conservative does not automatically make one left-leaning. Don't forget Conservatives do not have a monopoly on the right. Libertarians of course will tend to be more pro-immigration for obvious ideological reasons (i.e. the idea of minimal government interference in society). Libertarians a la Ron Paul come to mind, who's probably more conservative than most Republicans believe it or not, seeing that he's among the few Constitutionalists among the Republican leadership. So the idea that all on the right are pure conservatives is false. The right spectrum is shared by a few groups, including libertarians and a few who sit between libertarians and conservatives, again Ron Paul being a good example of that, and generally he's for more open borders on principle.

I think an important distinction needs to be made between personal bilingualism and organizational bilingualism. Any organization intent on functioning efficiently needs a common language. On that front, though I'd say Bill 101 goes way too far, the idea of making French Quebec's sole official language of government administration I think was a bright idea, an the rest of Canada could learn from that. From that standpoint, it would only make sense for the city of Toronto to adopt English as its official language of government administration. That being said, obviously while we want to ensure all Torontonians know the local official language, clearly personal bilingualism in many different languages can be beneficial for the city as then international companies and the local international tourism industry can access the skilled workers needed for a wide range of jobs. Without that distinction, the thread can't even start.

Yes, all those people on the streets, at police stations, inhotels, restaurants, government and private offices, etc. during my travels and work abroad were all part of a major conspiracy, all pretending to not know English just to lead me to believe that English is international only in the English-language classrooms of the world, the most international of business, and major international tourist hot spots and that's about it. Travel in your tour group lest your bubble burst. I've worked in BC, Ottawa, Montreal, la Malbaie, Shanghai, Jinan, Hefei, and Changchun at one point or another in my life, and I can tell you that even within Canada, even when dealing with Canadian clients, I've often had to be able to adapt to the local environment. Believe me, when I worked in Quebec, French was a required part of the job, take it or leave it. With all the degrees in the world, if you can't even talk, you're useless. Of course not. My computer just fell from heaven, along with the free internet access. I just prayed it to be so. Everyone here is on subsidies from myself, wife and family to live the Candian dream.Seeing that you're the one complaining about lacking the necessary qualifications for the job, how about you do what I did. Go to a bookstore (you know, those shops with lots of books in them), buy a book that could teach you the language or whatever skill is lacking, learn it, and then go out there and get off your donkey. Funny that. I'd come across unemployed people in Hong Kong when I was there. Hmmm... Maybe the world isn't that different after all. So, how far afield have you ever worked from home?

From my observations, people tend to be tougher on their own group than on others. It's kind of like a 'Only I can hit my siblings' mentality. I'd found that I was more outspoken about the KKK and such groups than my black friends and family members were, whereas they tended to focus less on any organization, but more on actual acts of racism against them. I'd found similar when I'd faced major harassment from the African American, Muslim, and Ethiopian communities. I found myself complainng more about the harassment itself and was less focused on any organizational affiliation of the perpetrators, whereas some of my friends and family members were much more outraged at the groups, mainly because they belonged to those groups themselves and so were more aware of how that reflects badly on them, just as the KKK reflects badly on us for example. So looking at it that way, it's only natural that a Punjabi will feel more strongly about such terrorist groups than we will since those groups are an embarrassment for other Punjabis who have nothing to do with them, and so it's natural that those Punjabis will be more committed than the average Canadian in trying to put this terrorist group down, just as White Canadians are likely to feel much more strongly about putting an end to the KKK owing to how it risks reflecting badly on us.