Scotty

I do not shop at Wal-Mart. That is not merely because I disapprove of their business practices, however, their scorched earth capitalism and the way they treat their employees. It's also because of the intertwined nature of their business with China Inc (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chinese Communist government). And, to be honest, their stuff is generally crap, and I like to buy nice things. Boycotting China generally is impossible. However, I will pay extra to avoid purchasing something from China if a choice is available. I will not invest in a Chinese company or any company which does any substantial amount of business with China. China's Bloody Harvest of Human Body Parts

One must remember that the Christian prophet was a wandering preacher. The Muslim prophet was a conquering warrior prince. Needless to say, their visions were dissimilar with respect to violence. Jesus, for example, never ordered people beheaded for disrespect, and never took female prisoners as his (politely put) 'concubines'.

Because, by and large, Christians and Jews are living in more enlightened societies (not coincidentally). The interpretation of Christian and Jewish holy books has changed over the centuries. Certain parables are not taken literally. This has not happened with the Koran. The Koran was last interpreted centuries ago, and at that time and since Muslim authorities, such as they are, declared that this was the final and perfect interpretation of God's holy, literal word. To even attempt to reinterpret things in light of modern thinking (even presuming those raised in Muslim countries are capable of such thinking) is blasphemy and heresy. And while we in the West might consider such charges quaint they still carry the word of law in Muslim societies. You can be imprisoned and killed for blasphemy. Needless to say, rarely is it practiced outside the West.

May I suggest that the next time you feel you have nothing to say, you take heed of that feeling? . If one places a certain value or worth upon the company one keeps, if one feels that ones life is better enhanced by living in a society made up of people with a certain sophistication, tolerance and enlightenment, why would one NOT wish to oppose policies which draw in large numbers of the opposite sort of people? And why would you feel doing so is somehow illegitimate? Do you claim to be such a paragon of openness and acceptance that you bear no judgement whatever on the types of people which surround you and their behaviour? That's like saying you can always find a Yugo which actually is more reliable than a certain Mercedes. But exceptions do not make the rule. For every policy, every law, every rule of behaviour, one can find exceptions where they function poorly due to a variety of circumstances. Nevertheless, we can still say with certainty that in the vast majority of cases those policies, laws and rules make sense. To do otherwise is to suggest we have none. Just as your policy appears to be that we accept all and judge them all.

Merry Christmas to all, even Rick. Pavarotti sings Ave Maria in Montreal's Notre Dame basilica

And yet, whatever can be said about him, he did more for Canada than Chretien...

Why?

I'm of two minds here. On the one hand, the concentration of wealth = the concentration of power. And that's not good for a country. On the other hand, paying taxes should be a requirement of every citizen. Nevertheless, about 40% or more pay zero taxes. I understand the reasoning behind that, in that we are trying to raise their income, but even so: If you pay nothing into the kitty what right do you have to even vote? I am far from rich, but I had a VERY good year, my best ever. I will pay over $100k in income tax alone this year. I am thus contributing more, economically than 40% of the population. I'm also contributing more than a dozen or two people who actually pay taxes, but not a whole ton of them. Yet what more do I get back from being a citizen than they do? Nothing. I have no better services, no more rights than them, no more respect than them. That seems unjust on some level I can't quite place.

I don't think the title was intended to be insulting. Straight from the horse's mouth is a well-known expression. I think the exchange of camel for horse was merely intended to represent a play on words indicating the middle east as a source. I don't believe I've ever heard middle eastern people insulted by calling them camels... Black people, however, have been called ape, so that would be an insult if referring to Black people. And, of course, vermin is a known pejorative.

The majority of that group consist of the spouses/dependants, who, like the skilled worker, had little ability to communicate in English, and who, unlike the sponsor, had no testing for skills or education. .Yes, the many immigrants who send their children 'home' to get a 'proper' spouse. I believe that when selling something, you charge what the market will bear. When looking for a good, a product, a service, you get the best you can. To me, the best possible immigrant would be someone who is fluent in English (or French) young, skilled in a trade which is in demand in Canada, and has the same sort of secular western attitude as we do. Skin colour has ZERO to do with it. However, it seems to me, and I haven't seen anyone try to contradict me, the vast majority of such people are in Europe, the US, and a few other countries. Now I understand past arguments were that we needed to go to third world countries because there just weren't that many Europeans interested in coming here. That is no longer the case. The massive, economic problems in Europe, with some countries experiencing unemployment rates which rival the great depression, mean plenty of young, educated people are available for us. In some cases the unemployment rate for young people is over 40%! We ought to be focusing on getting those people to come here. As to those already here. We need to do out utmost to (respectfully) encourage them both to increase their knowledge of English, and to accept and integrate with our culture.

I've been suspended for 'disrespect'.

You quibble like a lawyer. Rather than discussing my opinion and the pros and cons you simply chose to throw out an insult.

It's too bad we didn't have a 'facilitator' who would point out that responding to someone's opinion with personal insults rather than explaining why they disagree is childish and ignorant. Nice example you set.

Almost everyone who has looked into it acknowledges that they are responsible. Think about it. You have men coming from the mot mysogenist place in the world - the Muslim middle east - arriving into a country with the most sexually liberated girls in the world. These are men who think a woman who wears a short sleeved shirt is a whore. And they are men who think whores are loathsome creatures, from cultures where young women may be killed just for being seen walking alone with a boy. How do you expect such men to behave around Swedish girls? Especially since Sweden has done a piss poor job of integrating immigrants. Sweden, you see, is oh-so-sensitive and oh-so politically correct that it refuses to even acknowledge there are any issues. It took the United Nations to criticize them for not cracking down on rape. Swedish police are horribly uncomfortable at the thought of arresting minorities, you see, and tend to make excuses for them, much as you do.

Then might I suggest we instead limit our immigration to those immigrants who lack unpleasant social characteristics? Ie, focus our immigration on Europe and be very wary of potential immigrants from Muslim areas.

But I think it is reasonable for us to do our utmost for newcomers to embrace our culture, rather than shunning it and setting themselves and their children apart from it. I think it's particularly reasonable for us to act against the proliferation of cultural practices which are inimical to our way of life and to the social cohesion we enjoy. The culture of many of these middle east countries is extremely, even violently misogynistic. We need to get both women and men to reform, and making it clear that women are not to be wrapped in bedsheets is a small part of that. Let me give you an example of what I don't like, or what I might think is a concern in this regard. Sweden has brought in an awful lot of immigrants/refugees from Muslim countries. And in their 'sensitivity' have done very little to cause those people to adapt and reform their primitive, backward culture. The result is you have a bunch of people who think wearing short sleeve shirts marks a woman as a whore (and the whore is the lowest dregs of society barely fit to live) living alongside modern, sexually liberated Swedish women. What's that done? Well, the rate of sexual assault and violence against women in Sweden has gone from among the lowest in Europe to the highest in Europe. The Canadian government has actually issued a travel advisory to Canadian women traveling to Sweden! Is that not a shocking thing?! We keep no statistics in Canada regarding the ethnic or religious background of those arrested for rape, and we have done a far better job of educating and absorbing our immigrants than Sweden has. But many Muslim men still hold primitive and misogynistic attitudes and believes about women. Maybe if their women weren't wrapped in head to toe sheets they'd feel a little less contemptuous about Canadian women and their presumed morality.

What is the point in anything we discuss here? Does it have to have a point? The point would depend on the direction of the conversation, and on the topic and subject, which flows according to that direction. I have very little liking for or tolerance of the kinds of cultures and values I see in Muslim countries, which is, of course, inspired, in large measure, but Islam. So what? Well, indeed. But this topic is peripheral to that of immigration, and the kinds of people we're bringing into Canada, what accommodation we ought to make for them, and how much change we need to ask of them. And in that I do have an interest which is in persuading such people to abandon their often barbarous cultural practices and begin integrating with our own culture - as disparate as that culture is.

Very. While I don't approve of what Clement did, and don't like Clement, personally, this is the sort of thing which used to happen so regularly the press hardly ever even bothered to report it during Chretien's era. Hell, Chretien spent uncountable tens of millions on various gifts to Shawinigan. And I remember reading once that the feds spent more money on a certain small airport in Quebec than they did on all the airports in Alberta. That airport was the one Paul Martin used to visit his relatives from the Power corporation at their palatial country home.

Except that we no longer pay any attention to our silly book, while they still think theirs is the literal word of God.

Yet Muslim societies are moving in that direction, and have been moving for some years now.

Well, they can risk being beaten for not doing so. And we'll see how long they're even legally allowed to with the new Islamic governments taking over.

Islam means submission. You must live your life according to all the complexities of the Koran, and the numerous rules contained therein. You don't think it's oppressive to have to stop whatever you're doing five times a day to go through some dumb prayer ritual? When you put that together with obligatory ritual bathing and all the food requirements and other things your entire daily existence can be governed by the variety of religious nonsense you're supposed to obey. And that's without regard to the nonsense women have to put up with. I'd call walking around covered in a big black sheet all day no matter how hot it is quite oppressive. In fact, I've heard it described that way. Want to bug a Muslim? Have your friendly dog put its paws on him. Oh boy! He's now go to go take a shower, then wash his clothes three times. Ridiculous but there you have it. Oppressed by an all-present religious obligation.

Like, a generation ago? Sorry, but that doesn't qualify. Especially when those were isolated acts by people who were hunted down by the government. Compare to that Iran, which hangs teenage girls for the crime of being raped, or Afghanistan, which makes rape victims go to prison if they don't marry their rapist, or the UAE, where the supreme court specifies how you can beat your wife according to the Koran, or Indonesia, where mobs of crazed Muslims burn down churches and murder people, and the government then charges the members of the church who fought back, or Saudi Arabia, which forces teenagers back into their burning school because their faces aren't covered up. Shall I go on? There is a difference between the acts of a few screwballs who are not accepted even by the Church, and the actions of a society as a whole as accepted by both their church/temple/mosque and their government.

Perhaps if you had a greater grasp on literacy your posts wouldn't require followup explanations and further study.

Swaggering braggadocio is even less impressive when it's of an imagined victory.