CANADIEN

The comparison you made is still absurd.

Keep digging yourself into a even deeper and deeper whole. There is no comparison between segregation and union membership, and the claim that there is one is amongst the worse piles of m*nure I have seen here. what's next, will you compare mandatory union membership to the Nuremburg Laws? The obvious difference escaped you, and after reading your last two postings I do not wonder why. I was most definitely not comparing SSM with union rgihts. Rather, I was pointing how ridiculous the argument that mandatory union membership deprives someone from his/her right to work is by mentioning an equally ridiculous argument. You are the pot alright, and one with more holes than I have ever seen.

The only bogus argument, and one that is frankly an insult to anyone's intelligence, is that mandated union membership is akin to racist laws. Thank you though for demonstrating that are at such a loss for an argument that would make sense that you have to sink that low.

If I saw a video of a group of Muslims doing what those morons in the video did, I would think of them as a group of morons. That the video was very possibly doctored in a way that made the words of three elected officials sound different from what they actually say is a serious issues. If their words were misrepresentated in such a way, then apologies to them are in order. But this should not detract from one fondamental fact. A bunch of idiots were caught in action.

What is funny is YOUR hyprocrisy on freedom of speech. You have the legal right to hold opinions that even more remeniscent of a pile of manure than they are now (and I am being polite). What you don't have is the power to stop me or anybody else from expressing my dislike for your garbage and that of your fellow bigots. This is MY freedom of speech, which you keep attacking. You are of course the right to remain an hypocrite.

The worsening of economic conditions in Europe may lead to a small bump in European immigrants wanting to enter Canada. If they fit the criteria, they are as welcome as anybody else as far as I am concerned.

Nice try. We both know that Scotty is proposing something that would NOT be an application of the same yardstick to immigrants. And that, when I pointed to a flaw in his argument, you jumped in with claims, which you will not prove, that somehow this country is turning into Africa Scotty is proposing a quota (namely, European immigrants in, others not). If quotas are wrong, then this one is too, isn't it?

Fair to say, the potential for those hearings to turn into a tar-brushing exercise are there. Buta veritable Wannsee conference in the making? If you believe that, time to give your head a serious shake.

Let's admit it. Some people's attempt to prevent US from expressing an opinion THEY don't like is actually pretty funny.

Their problem, not mine. My computer is actually located in another part of my home. The question still remains, although I will rephrase it. Scotty clearly proposes not having the same yardstick for all potential immigrants - why do YOU support him?

Right on.

Mind you, I don't see legitimate as being synonym with legal or illegitimate as meaning ought to be made illegal. So anyone who would like to portray me as trying to remove's anyone freedom of speech is barking at the wrong tree.

So be it. I for one are not obsessed with where our immigrants were born. This though begs the question - why do YOU applaud when Scotty proposes doing away with having the same yardstick?

Needless to say, there is no evidence that anyone suggested that any of the morons who hurled insults at Muslim children at that event be charged with any crime because of what they said, mainly because nobody has suggested that. THAT would constitute an attack on their freedom of expression.

I am afraid you do not get it. Disagreeing with anti-Muslim hate mongerers is a violation of their right of free speech. And free-speech does not include disagreeing with them, or expressing an opinion about them.

Good for her then.

The only problem here is the protest turned up to be a lot more than just about the presence of two controversial figures, but rather degenerated into a hate-fest. Those who did that _ and I am actually doubtful it was even close to even a significant portion of the event, did harm to what would have been a fair and legitimate protest. They are no better that anyone at union protests in Wisconsin who showed their idocy by comparing the Governor to Hitler (actually, the attitude of some of them was botherline threatening, which makes it even worse).

Nope, you haven't. Feel free to show me any time where you posted evidence that illetaracy rates, age expectency, crime rates, hunger in Toronto are similar to those in Africa. Good question, considering that YOU applauded when Scotty suggested not applying the same yardstick to immigrants but rather giving preference to some based on where they come from. I, on the other hand, have made clear that I believe in the same standard (individual capacity to make a living and willingness to obey our laws) should be applied to all immigrants. So, why is it that YOU applaud when somebody proposes a different yardstick. (btw, policy recruitement policy are a different topic, but thanks for trying to muddy the waters)

Nice try. We both know - or at leat I know, that rate crimes (homicides or others) in other countries are not a measure of how an individual immigrant will behave. And that there is much more to what life is anywhere than crime stats. Know, back to actually proving that Canada is turning into Africa.

My exact point is that you claim that Canada will turn into Africa if let more African immigrants in, and that I am asking for evidence. I am still waiting.

There is quite a difference between: a - protesting the presence of controversial figures b - telling people to eat sand, hysterically accusing attendants of beating their wives, screaming at children and scaring them One is entirely legitimate. the other is crazy, hateful and disgusting.

As I said, show th numbers. Let's start with comparing literacy rates in Mozambique and Canada, for example, and how immigration from Mozambique and neighbouring countries are affecting said rates. Since, according to the United Nations, Canada's rate stands at about 99% while Mozambique's is lower than 50%, the conclusion is pretty self-evident.

As far has any person with common sense is concerned, people are not a commodity. They are people, period. Nice try with the comparison between schools and countries. One, given that they do have the credentials to do it, can choose which university they attend. One doesn't choose where they were born. But its great to know that you would choose let's a jamaican-born graduate from Harvard before let's say a Pole who has chosen to stop her studies in Warsaw to immigrate here.

Call it whatever you want. It is still changing criterais, but putting more importance on where people come from than on what they can actually accomplish. What's wrong with doing our best to encourage immigrants who can make it in this country to migrate, regardless of where they come from? Interesting, btw, that immigration is such a bad thing (at least based on your past postings) but it is to be welcomed if it comes from certain countries rather than other.

Let's talk facts indeed. Like in the fact that you wouldn't ban immigration from Northern Ireland just because of the political violence that plagued this place, but banning immigrants from non-white countries is fine, even when the person standing at a Canadian consulate has never committed a single crime. Two different stadards (oh, btw, in case you are tempted to make a fool of yourself by arguing that I favour admitting anyone and everyone, no matter what, I don't, and criminals need not apply no matter where they come from). Speaking of fact. Let's also consider the one important fact - crime rates in canada have been declining since 1991. Now, the incidence of crimes in certain communities is indeed something to be taken seriously. But not as an excuse for an outright ban that would include potential immigrants who are not criminals.