Shwa

Unless they are free enough to do so... This is an iffy subject isn't it? Why investigate advocates of peaceful change? Perhaps the fear of the wolf-in-lambs-clothing ethic drives our political apparatus more than we care to admit. The problem might not be the actual leaders of these movements, but the leadership that is the main focus of concern. So if you believe a shred of 'power corrupts' then there is potential for an increasing amount of power to have a corrupting influence on the cadre of certain political movements causing them to eventually abandon their peace-first attitudes and move on to something less peaceful. So in this way, I would question the overall context of the article in that Zinn did not exist without the ability to influence on several fronts. What I would ask for is were there FBI dossiers on some of those groups or movements or their leadship - that Zinn had influence on? Was he considered a 'hub' of influence on one or more groups that did not espouse his virtues of peaceful change? That is - even with a thick FBI dossier - Zinn did not live by (or in) a neatly categorized vacuum sealed definition. OK, this is hardly satisfactory to justify a police state, but unless there are clear methods to mitigate these sorts of blind threats, some form of investigation is reasonable. The article states that the file stretches to 1974. Did they somehow conclude that he was not a threat afterall and leave him alone or is there a second dossier about his last 35 years sitting around waiting to be released?

Or the Chiquita Banana jingle if you replace the word 'oil' with 'banana' and move the location into Central America.

Now you are getting it!

The only one invoking and "10 to 1 ratio for other issues" is you BC. Which would explain the difficulty in accepting a contrary view to your persistent internal reflection. Or did you not get the reference to My Lai as a pointer to the jingoist attitude? I am betting you competely missed it. So much for paying attention to the "narrative." Please use as many American inventions as you wish to explore the footnotes to Canadian history, such as Wikipedia that lists all three Canadian race riots.

And jingo was his name-o. Not quite, but if the USA was used as a benchmark, we could do worse. The problem is, we have access to European media as well - moreso nowadays, but we always have, especially the UK media. I highly doubt ready access to American media makes it necessary to use America as the final benchmark. Come on now. And yet here you continue to prognosticate - seemingly very pleased with yourself - despite having no equivalent exposure to Canada's experience. But wait! You have access to the Internet. So much for that premise. It was entertainment here and not much more. Good thing that you, as an American, are aware of this. I am comforted. Again, naive and backward misuse of the term out of context. This shows that you are not even close in understanding the connotation of race in Canada. Meh, its a compound world. You import our hockey players to fill gaps in your teams. So what? Which were addressed. Or has modern times simply passed you by? Not to the same degree as the US, which is the point. Our racist "narrative" is quite small and insignificant compared to the racist canon of the US. Posting a list of mass racial violence as a small example is hardly gross generalizations. Do you require more? For one who easily finds the racial fault lines in the US, I wouldn't think so. But I did think dre's example of the NBPP voter fiasco to be somewhat specific and illustrative. There is that nice, warm and fuzzy jingoistic centrism again. However, you have amply pointed out - ironically by misusing the term 'visible minorities' - that we indeed see what we need to see. We simply are not as oversensitive to the issue as you appear to be. That must stick in your craw or something. Not de-emphasized, merely footnoted. And as a problem, well America certainly was the source and it was of a much larger scale down there. Hardly, as you have proven already with the reference to employment equity programs and hate crime statistics. Canadians don't need to run away from the issue, we deal with it fine enough, especially when it comes up like it did in the Somalia Affair. But even still that incident was hardly My Lai was it?

Never had your blood pressure taken when you arrived in ER?

First of all shady - and dre is completely right on this - you are constructing a strawman argument about "race isn't a significant issue." No one has said that. Here is what I said: So if you are going to argue, argue that race carries the same connotations here as it does in the US. So along that line: I live and work in the GTA, so there is no rural projection going on. Race has been much de-emphasized in favour of ethnicity, which is constantly being celebrated in the GTA. Caribana. Taste of the Danforth, TaiwanFest, Festival of India, Chinatown Festival, Yiddish Festival, etc., etc. Watch CityTV news; does anyone really care that Dwight Drummond is black? Heck, did anyone even notice? What about Andrea? How about Kris, Sangita Tara or Francis among others? What sort of scale of projection occurs when the opinion is from someone from another country? Do you not think that prevalence of an issue affects the connotation in which that issue - or word in this case - has on the population that is experiencing the "lot more?" Another strawman! This has absolutely nothing to do with superiority or inferiority, only difference.

So let me get this straight: The reason there is a paucity of data on hate crimes in Canada is because the Canadian government - along with the rest of Canadians - has been under the influence of political correctness all of these years, is this what you are saying. But wait! There's more... Before it was "more of an issue" what was it? Was it less of an issue? Is this what you are implying? And finally, OK, so the fact that the Canadian governments - along with Canada as a whole - hasn't been collecting hate crime data as long as, and as detailed as, the US is an indication of what? ----------------------------------------- Let me ask you AW, how much of a foreground issue do you think Circumpolar Liason is in Canada? They have done studies, gathered statistics, done detailed investigations and examinations, had conferences and such, but overall, how much of an issue do you think it is with Canadians?

And why is it that, up until now, Canada hasn't gathered the information?

Also, here as well: The only way this "subconscious shift" could work is if there is a preconceived opinion on either the people behind the accent or people with accents in general. In other words, prejudice. I sincerely hope that Argus recognizes this phenomenon for what it is as opposed to believing it is some magical truth-saying function of the superior mind.

Why not? Part of the TTC funding comes by way of government funding and if a multilingual TTC helpline allowed better service and encouraged more users, wouldn't this be a good investment?

Here is some more anecdotal information from another health professional: Why ER wait times are what they are

I repeat: "Although a wealth of research and data exists in the United States..." So then I would ask, why is there so much more information about hate crimes in the US than in Canada?

Really BC? Oscar Peterson now? Man, race really does matter a whole lot to you doesn't it? Thanks for proving my point.

That's it? That's all you got? You are guilty of trying to equate a drop of water to a full glass. Sorry, that just won't do. Anyone seen Oscar Grant?

Really? Then what colour of skin does the any-race-except have? What about their eyes? Are they allowed to have white skin, but a different eye shape? Can they be naturally blonde or red-haired and green eyed in this any-race-except? Who will know? What is the difference in connotation of race between Canada and the US? Here is an example: Mass racial violence in the United States How about this comparative list of race riots. Hey, its wiki I know, but Canada has three in its list, the US a fair number of more. The latest was in 1933 between two gangs - one Anglo, the other Jewish and Italian. The last entry in the US list is 2010 during the "Modern" period between Latinos and African Americans. That is what I mean about "connotation." Sure Canada has employment equity terms for people to designate themselves, but that is a far cry from the foregrounded sensitivities over "race" in the US public, media or government. Now if you want to refer to some comparative data with respect to Canada and this racial sensitivity as displayed in the US, please do so. But I don't think you can make such a comparison. It is not so much that the media didn't report it, that people are trying to hide something, they are fooling themselves, it's just that it doesn't exist to the same degree as in the US. Note even close. Race is very much in the background here and when it comes to the fore, it usually doesn't remain there long in any meaningful way. Here is a story about the Montreal riots with the "visible-minorities" and some "non visible-minorities" battling it out with the police. Note in the story that this was contrasted with another riot when Montreal Canadians fans rioted after a quater-final playoff victory over the Boston Bruins. I mean, beer and hockey: they rioted over a quarter-final series win.

Now you are getting it! So when I say we need to hire a visible minority, what race am I talking about?

Then what race is a visible minority? How about a non-visible minority, what race is that? No one is saying that race is unimportant or that there haven't been racial issues in Canada, but I am saying that race simply has a much different connotation in Canada than it does in the US. It is much less important in Canada and our racial issues do not occupy the foreground as they do in the US.

Then what race is a visible minority? Too bad you missed the part about self-identifying. The is a pretty big concept in the context of "visible minority."

Ignoring the fact that your impression of what "visible minority" means is wrong, let me ask: who determines if one is a visible minority or not?

You are reading the term 'visible minority' wrong. It does not connotate race. Neither does 'non-visible minority.' Secondly, the term is used for specific purposes - for employment equity designations and statistics. It's utility outside of those specific areas is pretty low-key. So the whole elephant-in-the-room using "visible minority" as your foci is completely out the window. Not even close. As for the 2007 "news" story: It is pretty clear the the UN committee didn't understand the term nor took any steps to clarify the meaning of the term considering their "concern." Even the "internationl law professor" couldn't be bothered to do some basic research, so I guess that would excuse you from not knowing what it meant and how it is used. Again, you are using the term 'visible minority' completely out of context. So there is no kidding going on here, the focus of the story would be more about form than content because race in Canada simply does not carry the same connotation here as it does in the US. It never has and there is no reason to think it ever will.

The concept of cultural plurality and the term 'multicultural' was around quite a few decades before anyone heard of PE Trudeau. But the biggest difference is that the focus on 'race' is de-emphasized, that is, the term adopted was not 'multi-racial' or 'bi-racial.' This more or less reflects the typical Canadian view. The Canadian reaction to the sort of thing President Obama said, had it been said by Prime Minister Harper, would not have been about content as much as form.

Not even close. Maybe a pink elephant in the room from drinking too much beer during the hockey game, but race - or ethnicity - will never carry the same connotation in Canada that race has in the US. The issues aren't hidden, or denied space in the media, they simply do not carry the same interest here. Multiculturalism isn't a "recently" idea in Canada, it is merely recognized as a founding factor in the building of the nation. Canada has always been multicultural. First Nations issues were largely policy issues that were quite removed from the Canadian mainstream and based on policies of wardship and assimilation. Much different issues that the race issue in the US. The US has done remarkably well, I fully agree, but many people would qualify that with a remarkably-well-since...

Perhaps the government had a closer look at how the Globe (among others) used statistics out of context in order to sell the story and, in turn, sell more news. Is this possible? The Globe could never be accused of "management of information" could they? Why no uproar about that?

I tend to agree with Bonam's take on things. We have the right and freedom to express what we believe Universal Human Rights ought to be. And the keyword is 'ought.' However, I believe the intention of "universal" human rights is in order to set some sort of global standard that operates at the global level. Kind of like the IEEE and their technological standards. If you want your system to interface with our system, we will have to come together to try and define a common protocol of behaviour to allow those two systems to talk. Any country can define their own "internet" running on a protocol of their choosing, but if they want to gain the benefits of our system, there is a certain amount of compliance with our standards they will have to make. For the most part, it is likely better that a system change is voluntary rather than forced, for obvious reasons. I think the biggest clash is becoming one of nationalism or even internationalism, especially with the concept of moral relativism enters the picture and focuses more on culture than borders. Thus if some culture wants to treat women differently and make moral or behavioural trade-offs with their customs, they do not necessarily have that 'right' to do so where other (or our) standards have been adopted. The other aspect is trying to view other cultures - that have a long standing occupation of a certain place - as "nations." This would mean that the Kurds, for example, would be considered a "nation" for the purposes of global standards. Of course, I idealize, but not anymore than most proponents. When we add politics, power, investment, etc. into the mix, sometimes the original vision gets muddied, but that is only the perspective of application. So long as the underlying protocol is there, it can always be referred to when applications go wonky. As they often do.