Shwa

Well with regard to this post, I'm a lefty and I don't want to "bring over as many as possible" without it being a susatainable activity with regard to economic and social impact. As for anyone that "...by and large, thinks Muslims are vermin who should be in prison..." well this lefty would find that attitude sort of pathetic. More to be pitied than scorned. As for Sharia, meh, the Criminal Code ain't going anywhere and I doubt a weensy teensy portion of a weensy teensy ethnic group is going to make much a difference now or in the foreseeable future. We got Hudsons Bay stores and winters. I do find it funny sometimes, this Sharia boogey man that keeps getting trotted out. It appears that when it comes to this issue, the righties are always claiming that the tail is, in fact, wagging the dog.

You'll have to quote Canadian law and context when referring to Canadian First Nations and off-reserve legalties. What "unreasonable demands" has society been motivated to cave in to with respect to Sharia Law? If I recall it was soundly rejected in Ontario 5 years ago. Was there a news story or something?

Nope. Labelling all questioning of immigration policy as racist is not reasonable. Interpretation necessarily introduces degrees. And consensus. Law defines nothing and only frames a part. Hence, they need to make new laws and strike down old ones. And really, that is only the public part of the law, that refers to the public part of culture. You are saying nothing about anyone's personal decision to form their own interpretation of the law, in degrees, about acts private and public spheres. None of which needs to be codified, but can be implied. Why do you advocate social darwinism? No, I got Argus point and replied to it. The discussion as evolved. No, that is the risk you take. You either deal with it or put me on your censored list. There is, ironically, no law against that. Fair enough, since there hasn't been any requirement for it. Be my guest, I'll look for it.

Ok, so let's just say I am right and that there WAS a whole litany of fruitless efforts towards the settlement of the Haldiman Tract claims in the years, even decades, leading up to the 2006 protest. So, outside of the Douglas Creek Estates issue, are you also familiar with the outcomes of Ipperwash and Oka? You know, where people were killed? You are making it all sound one sided when there were many sides, complex issues and negotiations. You don't think there were cheapshots given by some Caledonia residents and even some other folks who were suddenly appearing in Caledonia as so-called "supporters?" Are you telling me that provocation was all on the side of the Six Nations protesters? The problem I find with your view here is that you somehow equate the townsfolk as weak, powerless sheeple. And who knows - maybe they think that of themselves too. But I hardly think that is the reality. Did Caledonians have an opportunity to redress the issue and maybe take a look at it themselves? Well, here is what you wrote before you realized that this issue had been brewing for a very long time: So are you telling me that somehow - through some secret magic spell - that the town and developer were surprised there was a problem even though that particular piece of land was in dispute for at least 10 years, but probably more? Are you telling me that a developer in unaware of Indian land claims or that the Caledonia town council somehow 'forgot' about that parcel of land even though there was a lawsuit? It would seem to me that both the town and the developer were fully aware of the contention over that parcel of land and they did and said nothing. And why would they say nothing? Because they both had some monetary gain to be realized didn't they? Upscale homes bring in upscale money which brings in upscale votes and upscale business into the town. So then, I find your impression that the town and developer were inculpable to be a titch unrealistic don't you? And I presume that you do not support any labour union or strike action by any organization whatsoever? I mean, labour actions generally inconvenience the public. There is a reason for that and it usually works. I agree, an honourable sentiment. But alas, it seems that the the town and the developer had ample opportunity to help resolve the issue LONG before 2006 and they did nothing and said nothing. And when the shit hit the fan all they could do was distance themselves from their civic responsibilities. They left the very people that entrusted them, to hang out to dry. Just like they had done to the Indians, their neighbours for hundreds of years. If a couple of people got punched out, well, thank God that was all. Another honourable sentiment. Too bad the Caledonia town council and the developer don't subscribe to the same feelings eh?

What is scarier, dude, is folks that are actually afraid of Sharia law somehow magically usurping Canadian law. The problem is that they might build upon this fearful fantasy and then use it to inform their outlook towards others.

Can't wait to see how he deals with the next strike of this or that in the Big Smoke. "Time to bust some heads..."

Nope. Some racists speak freely enough to be identified, but have any outspoken 'legitimate' critics of our immigration been openly called 'racist' by the press or media? You are ignoring degrees of power and influence. And I think what you are referring to is rather overt, public racism. Would you deny that racists can obtain positions of power in the bureaucracies of government of business and provide some form of pressure within those organizations? Who said anything about curtailing freedom of speech? Legitimacy is about reason, not censorship - even though, in the end, reason tends towards censure. If a group espouses a reasonable view - something that can be discussed and openly debated with a measure of public civility, we ought to welcome this should we not? Just one? Your cynicism is your problem I'm afraid and I can't much help you there.

Well you have probably done more research into the dispute than I have, but I will have to stick with my original contention and view of history that wasn't reported in the papers. Here is another quote from a wiki article that also seems mostly non-partisan: So how do you reconcile this with what the papers are telling you? It seems to me that there was something a-brewin at least 14 years prior...

Simply not true. For example, program evaluations are always used in the audits and reviews of policy. That you know of. However I think even with the partnerships with the provinces and their input into the goals of immigration there doesn't appear to be a 'layman's' report laying around that clearly spells out how the present numbers were determined and I think there should be. Now if you want, there is plenty of digging to do here with the Sustainable Development Strategy document. But it still is not right up front about any quantifiable goals. Quite simply the are reporting on things as they stand now. Your quite right here. I suppose I should have used the word 'participation' and not the word 'influence' too. No such legitimate group should be blithely attacked for a genuine interest in immigration policy review or reform in Canada.

And... the results are in: Omar Khadr pleads guilty So now... what?

This from the Toronto Star: Toronto 18 leader sentenced to 16 years And an interesting quote: Can these views be re-habbed into mainstream western viewpoints?

Why so touchy? Think tanks (such as the one in the OP), ethnic lobby groups, recognized spokesperson for communities or religious groups... I dunno. Some critics ARE racist, which poses a problem. If we lump in "any" criticism as being racist, then that is no good either. Therefore, we need to establish a baseline - an open, public and rationale baseline such as the groups above. So for open and public groups or even public persons that criticize immigration policies, do they get labeled as racist in the press or other media? I wouldn't think so seeing how libel laws work and such, so I am wondering where you are seeing all the immigration critics being labeled as racist. Not counting MLW of course. This is what I meant to say, although I thought I was clear about it the first time.

I think I can and I believe that all immigration policies should be regularly reviewed as a simple matter of a management best practice. What I see Argus asking is that should non-government organizations - such as the one he cited - have direct influence on immigration policy and reform? That is a touchy subject I think. Not the subject of immigration policy per se, but the influence of outside organizations including think tanks, ethnic lobby groups, religious groups etc. Sure they should be heard, their reports reviewed, but where is a line drawn to ensure there is no direct influence?

Well PC doesn't shut down debate here, thank God, however opposing blind bigotry or chauvensim isn't necessarily PC. But I am curious about this: "If you criticize the immigration policy you are an intolerant racist." Have you ever seen legitimate critics of immigration policy vilified as "racist?" If so, where?

Regardless of the specifics or what Blatchford may or may not write about; I understand the occupation of the Douglas Creek Estates was an escalation of a set of previously failed proceses. WB says that the protest should have been directed "at those individuals directly responsible at least at those with the specific ability to satisfy your demands." If there were failed negotiations prior to the occupation it would seem that the occupation was direclty aimed at those with the specific ability to meet their demands since the current proceses indicate that the demands are being satisfied. Further, I think occupying the site and preventing the heavy earth moving equipment from action targeted the developer directly. However, comparing the Six Nations protest tactics to the KKK, well, that's more than a little off base.

God gawd, I missed this! Sorry for not replying sooner! Police and CF have dispensation for using such force, which may be required in a course of duty that upholds civilian law. There is no such dispensation in sports or street fights, thus doing it in MMA - or any other sport - is gutless and cowardly. Oh, but the judge will consider it excessive force in practically all civilian cases. Booting, dropping a knee or elbow or even stomping someone while they are down can get you a manslaughter conviction. The problem is, how and when do you determine an opponent can no longer hurt you? When they are unconcious or semi-concious? Hit them anyways, just to make sure eh? Then we are now talking in ideals, so yeah the ideal of hockey - as determined by the rules - fits the ideal of real Canadian values. But ideals are not defined by abberations that occur from time to time. In MMA, the rules say you can hit someone while they are down. Hardly a Canadian ideal. And yet this is why teams carry enforcers who usally square off. You are getting ideals confused with abberations or penalties. There are rules about headshots and other illegal hits. Of course not, there is a rulebook which prescribes penalties for such behaviour. And I am not about to rationalize the gutless and cowardly behavior in the MMA either, specifically the allowance of beating of an opponent when he is down. Hitting from behind in hockey is illegal, against the rules, so Cherry is doing the right thing. MMA should do the right thing too and outlaw hitting someone while they are down. Wrestling/grappling yes, punching no, because it is cowardly, gutless and unmanly.

Well give me some examples of feminist ideologies outside the mainstream that could be construed as representative of feminism by your average person. I hear what you are saying, but I doubt Mallick expressing some of her private thoughts could be considered 'shrieking hyperbole' - a statement itself which seems to be a bit of a hyperbolic stereotype. Where in Mallick's opening few paragraphs do you get "shrieking" from?

Mallick's "melodramatic whining hyperbole" is very similar to a good portion of the first half of Atwood's most excellent, 'The Handmaid's Tail' where the protagonist, Offred, witnesses a world in whch men "...bruise women’s bodies, they humiliate us..., they expend great effort in keeping us pregnant, booting us away... are tireless in their attempts at control and resent our efforts to advance." Now whether Margaret Atwood intended this to be a feminist commententary on modern times or not, the "melodramatic whining hyperbole" is used in a similar fashion to Mallick's use, including a transitory device where Offred and Nick attempt to escape the grip of the ultra-conservative, biblically arranged society that has oppressed her and women in general. Its a very good book - it was even made into a decent movie - and Atwood has little trouble calling herself a feminist.

Wow, that's two whole sentences Saipan! Congratulations are in order, you excellent poster you, with your well thought out, relevant and wise sage postings. I can hardly wait for the next wonderful example of compact expression with surgical precision, the shining excellence and graceful efficiency. If we were all more like you, the world would be a better, more concise universe! Ohhhhh.... you were being... sarcastic.

1) I am not doing your homework for you ya moron. If you want to go back and lift quotes, at least have a little decency and bring along a little context. 2) Seriously, this coming from a guy whose typical post to anyone consists of one or two lines. Riiiiight.

Then move ya moron!

Hockey, lacrosse or pow wows?

And also from those readers who will read it and then suddenly become experts because, you know, Christie Blatchford wrote it, so it must be true.

Yeah, like Margaret Atwood for instance, with all that melodramatic and hyperbolic rhetoric in the 'Handmaid's Tale.'

Very few honest people would make an assertion about a portion of a population and then generalize about the whole without some sort of objective evidence to back up the claim. I have gone as far as I can because your inability to back up your claims. And, of course, you don't even come close for speaking for "anyone else" so lay off the appeal to popularity bullshit you're embarassing yourself. How would you know? You don't even have the simple ability to back up your claim about China being a "failed culture" and "most" of them live an unpleasant life - despite common facts that point to the contrary. Typical words of someone running away as fast as they can from the untenable corner they had backed themselves into. Again.