kimmy

So you understand why I say that it's awkward for me and my bare arms and my showy yellow hair to interact with somebody whose clothes indicate that she believes in traditional Muslim hijab? -k

As I said elsewhere, people were probably looking forward to The Phantom Menace or the Edsel... until the actual product arrived. Chosing a leader will give the Liberals a face... but that's not necessarily a good thing. The leader that they actually choose might not be as appealing as what people are imagining the next Liberal leader might be. Some people who support the Liberals might be doing so in the anticipation that Dion might be the next leader and will be disappointed when Ignatieff wins. Or vice versa. Some people who might not be following the race closely might support the Liberals in the belief that they'll choose "somebody good" to lead them and might be disappointed with the outcome no matter who wins. I completely agree that "leaderless" is not the disadvantage that people are making it out to be. -k

Ever go out for supper with a bunch of vegetarians and order a big, rare steak? Ever go out with your tee-totalling buddies and order a pint of beer? Ever go out with Jewish friends and order pork-chops? (I don't actually know any vegetarians, tee-totallers, or Jewish people... but that's not the point.) What I am trying to express is that there's an inherent awkwardness about doing something that directly contradicts someone's beliefs right in front of them. If a woman is dressed in traditional Muslim clothes, it's a visual indicator that she believes in hijab... and that the way I'm dressed is inappropriate. Bible-thumpers would disapprove of lots of things I do... but I don't actually wear any visual indicators of whether I have unmarried sex or drink alcohol or so-on. The Bible-thumpers don't really visually identify themselves as such, and I don't really visually identify myself as a lush or a slut. So that awkwardness isn't there in the same way. But traditional Muslim identify their belief in hijab by the way they're dressed, and that they disapprove of my lack of modesty is obviously implied... and that causes me to feel awkward before we've spoken a word. -k

A Muslim girl comes to me saying that...I'd just be polite and treat her the same as I would any solicitor. It's a different story when they start to sit down and open up the Bible/Koran...and start preaching. Or when they start getting pushy and wouldn't take no for an answer. I had one jehovah Witness who wouldn't budge even though I told her I was busy. Finally I just said "bye...." and closed the door. I didn't slam it. If an adult came up to me and told me that if I didn't put on a burqa I would go to hell, there'd be harsh words, and maybe punches. If an adult came up to me and was more polite about it, I'd probably be more polite about it, but the message would be about the same: mind your own business. If they sent a little kid to do their dirty work, I guess I'd try to spare the kid's feelings. But at its core, it's all the same. If someone approaches you with a religious message, it basically boils down to this: "follow our teachings or you'll go to hell." And however polite they might be about it, it's still a message that I don't really give a crap about hearing. -k

I worry about Jesus kids, who will one day grow and become Jesus voters, a helluva lot more than I worry about suicide bombers. I'm from Alberta fer chrissakes. Oh sure, the methods may be different, but the ends are still repulsive. When I see Muslims in traditional garb bumping around town, I feel a negative reaction. And it's not because I suspect that this person is planning to blow something up. When Muslims complain that people look at them as possibly terrorists, that's not it at all. I really don't. That's not what causes me to react negatively. My reaction is because I suspect that this person looks at me as (to coin a phrase) "a piece of uncovered meat." If I'm face to face with a woman who believes that it's a sin if more than her face or her hands are showing... uh, I guess that makes me a sinner. There's a judgment implied. I don't blame her for dressing as she believes she has to, but at the same time, it's a very visual signal that we have different world views and that I don't conform to her idea of what's moral. And try as we might, that's going to color our interactions. If conservative Muslims had the power to make rules in this country, my life would be a lot different. And as you say, if conservative Christians had the power to make rules in this country, or this province, my life would be different too. But the hardcore Christians don't visually identify themselves... if they're judging me, they seem to keep it to themselves. On that note, another clip from Jesus Camp. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JECP9qzjmF0 Becky, one of the adults, explains that they work with kids because their enemies work with kids. She notes that in the middle east, kids are taught at a young age to fight and die for their religion, and incredibly, she approves: "I want to see young people who are as committed to the cause of Jesus Christ as the young people who are committed to the cause of Islam. I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the Gospel as they are in Pakistan and Israel and Palestine and all those different places, because, excuse me, but we have the Truth." -kimmy

A video of the meltdown that got Richards in trouble (caution, contains coarse language and repeated use of the N-word.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3RjiVcIlhY I don't watch much standup comedy... but I thought standup comedians were supposed to deal with hecklers by using witty put-downs. Richards just yells the n-word at the guy over and over. More like a kid having a temper tantrum than a standup comic. Not exactly demonstrating quick wits, to say the least. -k

How does this destroy Canada? Would you prefer the Bloc proposal which made absolutely no mention of Quebec as a nation in a United Canada. This was done in reaction to that motion. The nation-destroying pettiness I was referring to was Harper's proposal to build a "firewall" around Alberta. The infamous "firewall letter" was a proposal that the province use powers and options that are available to all provinces, and are in fact being used by other provinces in Canada. It's clear that Harper has long favored an approach where the Federales keep their hands out of provincial business, and provinces operate with considerable autonomy. This is a view that's popular in Alberta, but perhaps less so in some parts of the country. Many Ontarions seem to prefer the idea of more power being centralized in the federal government. Which might be fine for Ontario, since in large measure they set the course of the federal government's policies... but for people out in "the regions", centralized authority means that the levers of government have been moved beyond their grasp. Decentralized authority puts decision making power closer to the people who are affected by the decisions. It's not yet evident whether this motion to recognize Quebec as a "nation within Canada" actually has implications beyond semantics. I am skeptical that it's related to Harper's preference for a decentralized model. In fact, it's somewhat the opposite... recognizing Quebec as distinct is somewhat contrary to the view that provinces have equal status, which has always been a fundamental principle of Alberta decentralist thought. -k

Of course. I agree that expressing a desire to slap or punch a little girl is somehwat pathetic. I assume that they are exaggerating, to express their dislike of proselytizing. Here's a thought experiment for you to try. Imagine the same blonde girl at the same bowling alley, sitting and drinking her coffee in peace. She is approached by a cute little girl with a loving religious message: "Hi! Um, I just want to let you know that Allah loves you very much, and he hopes that you will join him in paradise some day. That's why I have to tell you that you need to cover your hair, and wear modest clothes, and not go out without a male relative to escort you. Please follow Allah's teaching so that you can go to paradise some day." Is it still cute? -k

I don't like it, and I'm somewhat disappointed. However, I'm not yet sure how much to read into this. Back in the days of Meech, most people were willing to agree that Quebec was, indeed, a "distinct society"... that wasn't what made people mad... it was Quebec being given special legal powers and so-on. We already refer to the aboriginals as "First Nations". And Quebec already calls its legislature the "National Assembly". Referring to a nation within Canada isn't that revolutionary. But what concerns me is whether officially calling them a nation carries legal consequences. Does it mean they send their own delegates to international meetings? Does it mean Andre Boisclair would be able to go to a United Nations court and request an end to the Canadian occupation of the nation of Quebec? If this heads off a more sweeping BQ motion, then I guess I could grudgingly accept it. But I'm leery that this carries unforeseen consequences. -k

Are you serious, Gerry? You want us to discuss an alleged North American unification plot without commenting on whether the guy making the allegation is believable? Regardless of how many newspapers this story got published in, it's still a story about the seemingly outrageous claims of a single man. Therefore, that man's credibility is central to any discussion of the issue. I mean, really, Gerry. How can you suggest otherwise? -k

Quiet, you! That was supposed to be a secret memo! -k

Good grief. Are you so hypersensitive that you can't bear to see wing-nut Christians being talked about without pointing out something Muslims do that's worse? Doesn't it kind of go without saying that people disapprove of suicide bombs? And for the record, if you look at my posts going back months or years on this forum, you'll find that I really really really dislike fundamentalist Muslims and have never been shy about saying so. I dislike fanatics whether Christian, Muslim, Scientologist, or whatever. As for whether these Christian fanatics are very different or opposing to the Muslim fanatics, did you watch the Jesus Camp movie preview? -kids chanting and screaming and pumping their fists in the air with tears running down their faces? -convulsions? -"there's only two kinds of people in this world. People who love Jeeezus, and people who don't." -"how many of you would give up your lives for Jeeezus?" -"we're being trained to be God's army!" -"This means war! This means war! Are you a part of it or not?" -they've even got their own flag that they swear allegiance to. They're not very different at all. The same "if you're not with us, you're against us" crap. These particular fanatics don't make women dress up in tents, and these fanatics will fight their holy war using ballots instead of bombs, but those are just details. Underneath the trappings, it's the same dogmatic devotion. -k

No, they don't. That continues to be extremely obvious. They don't want "respect for their national and cultural circumstances," they want to ignore us in a more private venue. We are probably just an annoying gnat to them whether we're vocal or whether we speak to them in private. I think that in the cosmic scheme of things, it probably won't make a difference either way. They will do things their way regardless of whether we try to criticize them or whether we try to "build our influence." But my conscience is happier with a vocal approach, even if they don't listen. -k

Semantics. If he's a part of it, he's a wing-nut part of it. The analogy to Myron Thompson is a good one. Tom Tancredo might have been elected as a Republican, but there's no reason to think he's an "insider" with Bush, or especially to have any basis to say "I think the Prime Minister of Canada buys into it." In fact, he seems to be openly antagonistic to Bush: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Tancredo Other highlights: -proposes to stop all immigration, illegal or otherwise. -proposes to destroy Mecca if Muslim terrorists attack the US again. -spoke as a guest of the "League of the South" group, a racist, separatist group seeking to restore the Confederacy. His claim is pure scare-mongering. He's trying to spread fear among Americans to support his anti-immigrant agenda. -k

If they were married to the opposite sex, they wouldn't be gay now would they? Gay Canadians have the right to enter sham marriages, father a couple of kids by visualizing Brad Pitt on a beach, frustrate their wives by reading Muscle & Fitness or watching Rick Mercer Report instead of getting frisky, and finally run off with their fabulous hairstylist Raoul, leaving a shattered family and confused kids behind them. That was how they did it in the old days. Why can't the fags just do things the way they did in the old days? Are they too good for our Canadian traditions? -k

I agree it's a good idea. However, I have to point out that this proposal appears to come from the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, not the federal Conservatives. -k

But what if I really want the herbal breast enhancers? -k

uh, I think the question is, what has it ever achieved? You present it as an example of how our dialog with China ought to be handled, so the question is, what's so great about it? What has it ever accomplished? As far as I can determine, it's just as much hot air as Harper's "frank and open" talk of the past week. Hiti presented George Galloway was presented to me as an example of how the international community views Harper's performance this past week, so I think a discussion of George Galloway and his credibility was very relevant to the discussion. Disagree? Have any examples, aside from Mr Gallaway, of how everyone thought Harper blundered? And where are these examples of *international* media criticizing Harper for his performance of APEC? They are. If they were not, they would come out telling Harper to remove the muzzles on his MPs before he lectures them on democracy. Well, first off, I believe the issue was "human rights", not "democracy", and secondly, do you actually feel there's any comparison between the Conservative Party of Canada and the Communist Party of China? I mean, I know everybody loves hyperbole, but seriously? -k

How does it "supersede" your rights if gays are allowed to marry? I was trying to illustrate the point that rights are not determined by popular votes. If rights can be given or taken away by referendums, then there *could* be a referendum on banning Catholicism. Should Catholics' right to practice their religion depend on how people vote? Of course not. Catholics have the right to practice their religion because our country guarantees it, not because it's popular. You're comfortable with the idea of referendums because white anglophones are still the majority in this country. If you lived in a place like Quebec or Toronto or Vancouver where white anglophones weren't the majority, you'd be a lot less comfortable with the idea of your rights depending on whether they're popular or not. -k

And what a superb job it's done. Let me guess... they met at a party on Bono's yacht? -k

Can you give me an example of the rights of a "special interest group" overriding the rights of all other Canadians? then I gather you agree that gays should be able to get married? Since when are rights decided by referendums? Could we have a referendum on the question of whether Catholics should just fuck off? Then you support same sex marriage? oh. You mean *except* for same sex marriage. But why? Oh. Because you say so. -k

Apparently your grasp of the word "satire" is about as solid as your grasp of the word "hoax". -k

Do you advocate that we "earn their respect" by keeping our mouths shut about anything that might upset them, while pleading with them to please just give our manufactured goods a chance? Please? Please? Yeah, I bet the Paul Martin approach won us a ton of respect from the Chinese, and from all over. I bet George Galloway thought it was awesome too. -k

Let's be fair. Preston Manning was elected to the House of commons repeatedly as an individual MP, so he did in fact win an election or two. Let's look at his accomplishments: Preston took a regional grievance movement from zero representation in the House to being the more viable contender for small c conservatism in Canada and the Official Opposition in 1997. His party may never have won an election under his leadership, but it did go from winning a single seat in 1989, to forming the dominant core of the governing party in 2005. And according to Wiki, Stephen Harper was Preston Manning's chief policy adviser and the architect of Reform's 1988 election strategy, so while it's fair to say that Harper has distanced himself from iron-fisted conservatism (which he undoubtedly has) it isn't fair to characterize the difference as Manning v. Harper. Yes, Manning had considerable success running for office in Alberta. And the Reform Party had considerable success right here at home. And in rural areas of BC, and in the other prairie provinces as well. I certainly don't dispute that. I respect Preston Manning. And I'm actually somewhat proud that our little regional protest party has had such a profound role in shaping Canadian politics in the past 20 years or so. That said, they hit a brick wall. And while August might be right in asserting that a prejudice or skepticism towards outsiders might have played a role in central Canada's reluctance to embrace the Reform Party, I don't think it can be overlooked that Harper overcame that factor only after he'd adopted a more moderate set of policies. Actually, there are a number of bona fide reasons why the PCs lost the last Ontario election. Chiefly, these are: (...) Be that as it may, "Common Sense Revolution" policies are about as popular as dealcoholized beer or venereal disease in Ontario right now. Hey, didn't Harper used to work for a think-tank? Imagine that. (Go ahead. Argue that think-tanks and lobby groups are two totally different concepts, except in that, um, they both aim to shape public policy.) Does that matter? Manning and Harris have both vanished into political obscurity for more or less the same reason: Ontario voters don't care for their policies. Harper has emerged from political obscurity and achieved some measure of success in large measure because he stepped away from the arch-conservative policies promoted by Preston and Harris, and adopted more moderate policies that were more in sync with Ontario voters. Maybe. My chief point is that it's somewhere between foolish and ridiculous to somehow interpret Harper's current polls as a signal that ought to be more like Mike and Preston. For the future? Personally I am skeptical of the theory that the Liberals will gain momentum once they choose their new leader. I think people are overly optimistic about what they're going to get. I mean, people were looking forward to Star Wars: The Phantom Menace... until they actually saw it. People were probably looking forward to the Edsel and the Hindenburg and the Titanic. It's like looking forward to the super-awesome toy that you asked Santa for... and once Christmas morning arrives and you've got your super-awesome toy... you realize it's not actually all that great. I think that once the Liberals choose a leader, the fantasy will be gone and the reality will set in... and people will realize it's not actually all that great. -k

You mean this part? If they're such big believers in mutual respect, maybe they should show some. -k