kimmy

UNESCO is in charge of our education system? -k

I went straight to the horse's mouth: http://www.bbm.ca/en/top_programs.html They have weekly PDF reports listing viewership. -k

You lack perspective, Ricki. 1.2 million viewers is still a lot. Comparison: the big US hits Shark and House drew around 850,000 Canadian viewers apiece for Global last week, and finished near the bottom of the "top 30". Top 15 is good, even top 30 is pretty good. If the Mosque drops another 40% this week 720,000 would still make it among the top "entertainment" programmes on CBC (behind only Rick Mercer, I'd suspect.) If they drop another 40% after that... 432,000 is not successful by normal network standards, but how many people do you suppose watch Jozi-H or ... well, I'm at a loss to actually think of the names of any of CBC's entertainment offerings, but the point is that CBC has kept shows on the air a lot longer, with a lot less viewers. I think we all realized that there were a lot of people who tuned in to Mosque initially to find out what all the publicity was about, and I don't think anybody expected most of these people to stick around. It'll be interesting to see what Mosque's audience settles at. -k

That somehow implies that it is acceptable to say that homosexuality is "not normal or natural" but it is unacceptable to say that it's a "disease".I suppose there's a distinction but it's slight. Do we really want a tribunal making such distinctions where free speech is concerned? Coren said "I use the words carefully and precisely because this is what John DiCicco, a city councillor in Kamloops, B.C., said and why he has been forced to pay $1,000 by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal." But if his intent was to replicate the circumstances under which DiCicco was fined, neglecting to mention "disease" is rather opposite to the "care and precision" he claims, isn't it? I see two likely reasons why Coren would omit the mention of the "disease" angle. He suspected his readers would feel the distinction was more than slight, and he thought it would weaken his argument. Or, he suspected his editors would feel the distinction was more than slight, and ice the whole column. I am not generally in favor of fines and penalties being imposed for anything except the most flagrant abuse of the freedom of speech. However, downplaying the difference between Coren's version of events and the version described by Councilman Singh or reported in Kamloops This Week as a "slight distinction" strikes me as inaccurate. You could also say that there's only a slight distinction between "negro" and "n****r", but in the real world we know that the one word is merely archaic while the other is intensely inflammatory. The difference between "not normal or natural" and "a disease" is the same sort of inflammatory characteristic, which I suspect Coren recognized, and his editors and readers would have recognized, and Singh recognized, and DiCicco ought to have recognized. I don't feel the fact that he said it makes him a criminal, but I do think it suggests that he's not very smart. -k

You keep claiming that there are others who are in just the same situation. Prove it. Show us a case of a comparable situation being treated with less sympathy. Until you provide an example of a similar situation being treated with less compassion, what you're saying is just a load of unsubstantiated horse-shit. You can continue spewing unsubstantiated horse-shit, or you can step up to the plate like a grown-up and provide an example of this double-standard you claim exists. I really hope you do the latter, but I've seen enough of your stuff to know that the former is much more your style. Come on, Catchme, stand up and exceed yourself just this once. Fictional? Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. I thought it might be informative for you to see how your view on this subject was perceived by somebody who's not familiar with your politics. But, you know, whatever. Feel free to keep doing what you're doing. Ok, let's say your stance isn't a petty, vindictive slam against these peoples' ancestors for having the audacity to doubt that Canada was a tolerant, multicultural utopia in the first quarter of the 20th century. So, what underlying factor are you trying to address? To reunite with relatives? Because Mexico and Paraquay have gotten worse? Because Canada has improved? Because they (and everybody else) had thought they had legal Canadian citizenship until this technicality was unearthed? As people keep trying to explain to you, they did not "want" dual citizenship at the time they left. They didn't "try to keep dual citizenship". Again, because you apparently missed it the first 2 times, Canada didn't *have* a citizenship law until 1947! Canada didn't *have* a citizenship law until 1947! Canada didn't *have* a citizenship law until 1947! The rules that gave Canadian citizenship to some (but not all) of the decendants of those who left didn't exist until many years afterward. Perhaps 1947, or perhaps the 1977 overhaul, or perhaps subsequent updates. I didn't actually suggest that. I suggested that while you'd like to make a comparison between these Mennonites who are "illegal" because of an 80 year old Mexican paperwork issue, and somebody like Jean Yves Brutus who is "illegal" because he pimps runaway girls, carries illegal weapons, and tried to kill somebody for wearing the wrong colour, rational people don't accept such a comparison as valid.If our immigration department can find sufficient compassion for a dirt-bag like Jean-Yves Brutus to allow him to remain in our country despite his many flaws, surely we have enough compassion to not break up families and uproot people from long-established lives in this country for a reason as flimsy as 80 year old Mexican paperwork. Again, either find us a comparable case, or quit claiming that people "in the same boat" as these Mennonites aren't being given any sympathy. If you can't find us a real case for us to examine so that we have something to talk about, then perhaps you should shut the fuck up. Or, I guess, you could go right on making a fool of yourself. Now there is a good point. Looking after self interests, much like trying to keep dual citizenship even though you stated you were fleeing persecution and government interefernce. Now, I wonder how many came back from Mexico and Paraquay to get in on this cheap land scoop up?During WWII, conscientious objectors (including the Mennonites, Doukhabors, and others) were required to serve in either non-combat branches of the military, or in "Alternate Service" camps, doing labour in the national interest. This carpetbagger scenario doesn't sound credible.Mennonites have indeed bought a great many family farms on the cheap in more recent times. They also rent a lot of farmland from families who don't wish to farm their own land but don't wish to leave it either. Farmland is comparatively cheap, and has been for years, because depressed crop prices make it very difficult for the family farmer to make much money. Mennonites, using collective practices, have attained an economy of scale and efficiency in use of pooled capital and labor, that makes farming a much more viable enterprise for them as a group than it is for a single family going it alone. Are you just talking out of your ass again, or do you have something to support this? Individuals join and leave religions all the time, and the vigor with which they follow their faith's doctrine is often a personal matter. But if you're making this claim of the Mennonite movement as a whole, you'd better have something to back it up with. -k

Formal dress is not required. Call it and see if a nurse answers. You guys. Thanks for the laughs, I really needed some cheering up. -k

Apparently I should have read more before deciding to open my yap on this one. My comments likening this to Parliamentary Privilege appear to have been off-the-mark. Arjun Singh, also a Kamloops city councillor, addresses the issue in his blog: ... Singh asserts that the comments were made in a public interview, not a city council debate. He also mentions DiCicco comparing homosexuality to a disease... an aspect of the tribunal that neither Michael Coren nor the Catholic Civil Rights League thought merited any mention. That of this is verified by Kamloops This Week: So, as Dobbins had suspected right from the first, this is not so simple as it first appeared. -k

I read about a similar case some time ago (also while doing research regarding a hate-speech thread on MLW. MLW: It's educational! There's even homework!) That instance involved a long-running dispute between a teacher and the BC Teachers Fed. The teacher had written a letter to the editor of some paper regarding the perils of homosexuality (I believe he spoke of the disease and drugs perils, rather than the fire and brimstone perils, but I will have to search that up again to me sure.) The BCTF levied some sort of penalty against the teacher, as the letter expressed views opposing BCTF policy. Rather than accept the BCTF penalties, the teacher challenged that ruling. His view was that he wrote the letter outside of his capacity as a teacher and that the BCTF has no business limiting his right to express his views outside of his responsibilities as a teacher. The BCTF position was that his position as a teacher may make him influential to students whether inside or outside of the classroom. I'll attempt to dig that one up again, as I believe it's a more interesting and complicated situation than this one. This one, to me, seems rather straightforward. DiCicco is a city councillor? His view was expressed during debate on a city proclamation? What is a politician's duty, if not to express opinions? In Ottawa, our federal representatives have Parliamentary Privilege so that they might express their views without intimidation or restraint during such debates. To me, the notion of fining an elected representative for expressing an opinion during a debate on an issue is completely contrary to our democratic beliefs. In my opinion, while DiCicco is on the job, he is accountable to the voters in his district, not to a human rights commission. -k

What would the point? We don't have a means of keeping a sub-forum separate by political party. The result would be Conservative supporters interrupting discussions on the Liberal board, Liberal supporters interrupting discussions on the Conservative board (moths and crickets dominating the NDP board...) and the party sections would wind up being about the same as mini versions of the Federal Politics board anyway. If you do wish to discuss issues with others who are members and supporters of just one party, I'm sure there are better places than here. For Liberals, perhaps Jason Cherniak's blog has a message board, that might be a good place to start looking. -k {btw, you might enjoy this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcD0Mmyp3f4 }

I mentioned the Doukhobors alongside the Mennonites because Sifton specifically recruited both groups to this country. Neglecting to mention the Doukhobors would have been an error of oversight. The two groups have a lot in common. Both were religious pacifists. Both endured many years of persecution and forced migration around Europe. Both were recruited to Canada because of their well-known work ethic and agricultural skills. Both were promised exemption from combat duty in time of war. Both groups were considered filthy and disgusting by the British descendants who made up most of Canada's population at the time. They're very much alike, except, apparently, that the Mennonites didn't have a famous patron. Why don't you just say it. We know you're dying to, so why don't you just come out and say it: "You guys are racists! You want these white aliens allowed to stay, but you want the brown aliens to get deported! Racism! Racism!" I mean, on the one hand, we have Jean-Yves Brutus, who's a brown illegal alien, and on the other hand we have these Mennonites who are white illegal aliens. They're practically the same, right? So why are people clamoring for poor Mr Brutus to be deported, yet clamoring for these Mennonites to be allowed to stay? Must be racism! Well, yeah. Aside from the skin colour, the situations are practically identical. Jean-Yves Brutus was supposed to be deported because he's a street-gang member who carries illegal weapons, pimps young girls, and shot somebody in the back for wearing the wrong colour. And these Mennonites are religious pacifists who are supposed to be deported because of clerical errors made in Mexico 80 years ago. So what's the difference, aside from skin colour? Gotta be the racism! God, it's so racist I can hardly live with myself. I am going to go seek out some fucking sensitivity training right this fucking minute. Tell you what, Catchme, if you can find some case where a non-white person who's lived in Canada for years and is going to be deported for such a chintzy reason, why don't you present it to us. If that person's case is as sympathetic as these Mennonite non-citizens, I can promise you that most people here will support that person no matter what his skin colour-- brown, green, purple, plaid, whatever. You said: Well, find us these "others" who are in "the same boat or similar." So far, we haven't heard about these "others". We've heard about Jean-Yves Brutus, whose boat, I'm sorry to say, isn't the same. Or remotely similar. The message here, and I suspect the view of most Canadians, is that if our immigration system can allow a street-thug like Jean Yves Brutus to stay in Canada, then forcing these Mennonites to leave due to 80 year old paperwork would be an extraordinary injustice. As August just tried to explain to you-- unsuccessfully, it appears-- Canada's citizenship laws didn't even *exist* at the time these people left Canada. Your continued attempt to portray their retaining Canadian citizenship as some sort of cynical ploy on their part is quite simply wrong. The law that made most (but not all) of these people Canadian citizens even after they left the country was not made until *years* after they left. Further, this ongoing refrain of yours, the "if Canada was so bad to them, how come they want to come back?" has echoes of the "love it or leave it" mentality that most progressives despise. Why'd they decide to leave? Probably because Canada was not the paradise they'd been told of, and because as a people, relocating to avoid persecution was more or less a habit to them. Why'd they decide to come back? Probably because Canada has changed for the better and Latin America has changed for the worse. Probably because they have family in Canada. -k

I was stuck home yesterday, still recovering from the flu, so I was chatting online with my friend Chris, an avid NDP supporter from Toronto. I made mention of this thread, and here's his reaction: I guess this is not very relevant to the issue under discussion, but I thought it was interesting to see how an outsider to MLW reacted to the thread. -k

Polls indicated that a large number of Canadians were very unhappy with the previous attempt at an environmental policy. Harper has responded by putting a more aggressive environmental policy in place, in an obvious attempt at gaining popular support. Politician gives public what public says it wants so that they might vote for him next election. Wooo. Scary. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work? Paul Martin wouldn't even a crap without consulting a poll first, and his boosters praised him for "heeding the voice of the public" or some such platitude. Harper changes his policy to react to public opinion for basically the first time in his tenure, and suddenly reacting to public opinion to try to please the public is diabolical, Machiavellian schemery of the most cynical order. I am a Harper supporter, and I was deeply disappointed that they attempted to half-ass a limp environmental policy instead of making a bold and positive statement the first time around. I'm somewhat pleased that they're at least trying to correct that mistake, although it would have been much better if they'd done a credible job the first time around. -k

As I understand things, Canada's Muslim community is about twice the size of Canada's Jewish community, so on the surface this would seem like a disadvantage to the Conservatives. However, I can't help but wonder how voters who are in neither camp will respond if the Muslim community starts taking an active role in campaigning. I believe that Canadians find anti-Semitism to be revulsive, and the Muslims will have to walk a fine line in this to avoid appearing anti-Semetic. Considering how often Muslim leaders have put their foot in their mouths regarding Israel, it probably wouldn't take much effort to make an "opposition to pro-Israel policies" stance look like an anti-Semetic stance. -k

In the cases of people who've used deception or subterfuge to gain illegal residency in this country, yes. There's no reason not to send such people home. Yet even in such cases we find "progressives" decrying the injustice of racist and Hitlerite immigration department rulings, sending poor people back to bad countries. I feel there's a considerable difference between such people and the people in this story, people who've been living in Canada without deception or subterfuge for years only to discover that their citizenship is being revoked for, essentially, a paperwork glitch that was made over 80 years ago. I also find it puzzling that you apparently wish to see these people punished for a decision made by their grandparents or greatgrandparents. And the distinction made by the Latin American countries-- not recognizing church marriages as legal-- isn't one that Canada makes anyway. By Canadian standards, these people were not born out of wedlock. I also think it's rather snobbish of you to pass judgment on these people based on your 2007 urbanite notions of what their situation might have been. I encourage you to read about Clifford Sifton and the Ukrainian immigration he promoted during his time as Minister of the Interior. Canadians of the time were utterly against bringing such people to Canada, but Sifton sought them to turn the unproductive prairies into a productive agricultural region because he recognized their industrious character and talents for farming. Sifton brought these people-- the Mennonites and Doukhobors-- to Canada with many promises, some of which were honored, but some of which were bald-faced lies. Are you aware of the intense bigotry these people faced at the time? Were you aware that thousands of them were interred during World War I, and tens of thousands were classified as "aliens of enemy nationality" and treated like parolees? Thousands were sent to forced labour camps? (were you aware that Canada still has not apologized or provided any compensation for property seized or forced labour performed?) It strikes me as somewhat ignorant of you to question why they'd want to leave Canada after these experiences. -k

Btw, thanks Jenna, I did enjoy the Keith Olbermann and Lou Dobbs videos. I especially enjoyed the Olbermann piece about the chaos at Air Force control on 9/11. That's a pretty powerful explanation for why the Air Force was unable to intercept any of the hijacked planes. I will be sure to repost it next time the Truthies start yapping about a "stand down order", or start talking about how it's not believable that the Air Force couldn't intercept the planes. After watching that video, the reasons why the Air Force didn't stop the attacks are quite clear. I also enjoyed the Olbermann editorial about the loss of civil rights under the guise of "security". He's right, the erosion of civil rights is a very serious issue. This doesn't actually have anything to do with the topic of a North American Union, but it was an excellent speech nonetheless. Lou Dobbs is certainly fired up about SPP. He says trade and border security issues are being settled behind closed doors. He's also very upset about increased economic integration of North America, perhaps with good reason. After all, many Canadians are still upset about NAFTA, and the issue of whether free trade between our nations has been good or bad probably depends on your field of work. Perhaps Dobbs is right to anticipate SPP having negative effects for Americans. However, nowhere in any of those clips did I see Lou Dobbs lend any support to the idea that the SPP is about more than trade and security. He did not mention anything that remotely suggests that there will be a single transcontinental government or anything of that nature. I got quite a laugh out of the "Infowars" video you linked to. Scary music, explosions, a couple of Dobbs soundbites from the above-mentioned report taken out of context, an angry Libertarian Party candidate ranting about a communist state, and finally a big commercial at the end for Alex Jones' shitty websites. -k

Don't try and dodge the question by posting pages and pages of copyrighted material (and by the way, posting pages and pages of copyrighted material is against the forum rules.) Why don't you tell us why you think Alex Jones lied about what that poll actually says? -k

OMG, Black Dog, do you think that this whole thing is a gigantic scam to invade Iran and take the belt back from the Iron Sheikh? -k

That's stupid even by your standards. I thought you said you went to college. You can't write, and you apparently can't read very well either. What college did you attend? PolyNewbie's School of Toaster Repair?The question, again: People were specifically asked whether they believe Bush when he said he had no warning. You can't change the meaning of the question by saying something retarded like "hiding info = involvement" The question asks what it asks, and trying to spin the result into something different is a big lie. Why do you have so much trust in this particular liar? -k

Yeah, and when we look at the actual poll questions asked, we'll discover that most of those people blame the government for ignoring intelligence reports or for the disorganized and late response by the Air Force, and nobody who believes the government had the buildings blown up. PolyNewbie has been saying for months how many people believe conspiracy theory, but the truth always turns out to be more like this: Prison Planet: Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story. Only 16% now believe official fable according to New York Times/CBS News poll Alex Jones, that bastion of journalistic integrity, quotes the poll thusly: See? It's not just a movement, it's a revolution! 84%! Wow! Everybody thinks the government did it! Except when you actually read what the poll was asking, it says: (source: the actual poll, right from Angus Reid) Alex Jones neglected to mention the part of the question that explains what people polled think Bush was lying about. He clipped the most important part of the question off, to make the poll say what he wants it to say. Alex Jones is lying about what the poll says. How much else is he lying about, and why should people believe him when he talks about anything else? -k

If they insist on keeping their veils on, they will just have to do without passports and driver's licenses. Unless they're willing to accept some other reliable means of proving their identity. Fingerprints or RFID tags might be viable. (Imagine the fun. "Why do they insist on taking our womens' finger prints like the criminal?" "Why do they insist on implanting tracking chips in our women like the dogs and pigs?" I bet taking off the veils don't sound so bad now, does it. ) -k

Neat trick, considering Andrew Jackson died in 1845. Would you or Polynewbie supply links to Olbermann or Dobbs speaking about the "new world order"? I'm sure we're all eager to see these. -k

That's beside the point.You asked why police and security is a growth industry, and why colleges are advertising security courses. The answer is obvious. Security is a growth industry because governments are under pressure to increase security. If governments were hiring more and more janitors, people would be signing up for "custodial service" courses and they'd see "custodial services" as a field where they can find work. It wouldn't mean that Mr Clean was planning to take over the world. You keep repeating this (and the percentages keep creeping up, I notice) but most peoples' questions about 9/11 are along the lines of "did the government ignore warnings?" and "why didn't the Air Force do something?" Not "did the CIA blow up the buildings" or "did laser beams from space cause the buildings to fall." What the fuck is this shit about? Who's saying 2+2=5?People who look at old railyards and see concentration camps. People who look at NAFTA and SPP and see a Unified North American Police State. That's who's saying 2+2=5. The New World Order will have a new language? This keeps getting better and better. What will they be speaking? Yiddish? Esperanto? Farsi? Pig Latin? I can hardly wait to hear about this one. Dude, there's no "New World Order". "They" are making way too much money off of the current one to let things change. Your theories aren't even consistent with each other. Think about this: if everything is controlled by bankers, and bankers cause wars to make themselves rich, then why would they create a world government? If wars between countries are so profitable for them, why would they eliminate wars by merging countries? -k

You again omit to mention that Iran's own news agency was the first to offer the mistranslation: According to your own article: Why is the Islamic Republic News Agency spreading inflammatory lies against Iran?Is it because the Islamic Republic News Agency part of this Jewish Media Conspiracy?? Is Al Jazeera part of the conspiracy too? -k

Out of curiousity, who the fuck is Alex Jones? I mean, I know who he is, what I want to know is what credibility he has. If there was a "powers that be" that has the power to make people disappear at will, wouldn't they have vanished this guy if they thought he was any kind of threat? If "They" make people who "know too much" disappear, doesn't the fact that Alex Jones hasn't disappeared seem kind of odd? Like, either "They" can't make you disappear, or else Alex Jones just doesn't "know too much" at all. -k

The translation, in fact came from the Iranian National News Agency, not CNN or BBC. If CNN or BBC made a mistake, it was in trusting the IRNA's translation. As for the mistranslation itself... is "wiped off the map" really all that different from "vanish from the pages of time"? I don't see that big of a distinction, really. And he's had plenty of time to clarify or correct the comments, but he's just reaffirmed the position. -k