Ruby Dhalla to give full pensions after 3 years of residency!

[Argus]

The reason it is unrelated to the topic is because, as an MP, it is her job to represent her constituents.

Whether she is "one of them" or not isn't relevant - unless she isn't fit to be MP because she is in Canada illegally but then, once again, that is unrelated to the OP.

Instead of focusing on those reasons, Argus has to focus on her and her ethnicity.

There is a lot of overt racism in Canadian politics, and all of it comes from within the ethnic communities. Here's how it works. You take an ethic of some kind, usually asian of some variety. The ethnic consults with his or her ethnic community, perhaps at a mosque or temple and other community centres, and then he/she joins the local party of his/her choice not very far before an expected election.

As that riding association comes to consider who its candidate will be in the upcoming election (a vote which normally only has perhaps 100 or 200 participants) scores of ethnics show up, plunk down their $10, join the party, and vote for their person. Longtime, hard working members of that party riding association are pushed aside by the newcomers, whose only interest is in getting one of their own elected. Most of them know little or nothing about policies, many can't even read English. None of that matters. Suddenly, the candidate will be one of THEIRS.

Now it comes to the actual vote. Say a riding has 25% Nigerian (as an example). The ethnic candidate will spend most of his time actively ensuring that his community will get out to vote for him. And the hell with the rest of the people there. Why? Simple vote breakdown. If the ethnic gets 24% of the vote right up front from his community, then the expected votes he will get simply by being a member of the Liberal/Conservative/NDP will probably carry them over the top fairly easily. Why will they get that 24% of the vote? Because the ethnics vote racialy/tribally. We would automatically call a white man racist if he deliberately set out to vote for a candidate who was white, but nobody ever says a thing about ethnics doing the same in reverse.

In Brampton-Springdale, almost half the population is from south asia. Needless to say all three candidates will thus be South-Asian in just about every election.

Ruby Dhalla is the representative of the south asian community in Brampton-Springdale. That's why she would bring forward this kind of bill. Anyone who says bringing up her ethnicity is irrelevent is a fool.

[Argus]

But will the Tories buy it? There are media reports saying Ruby Dhalla will cross the floor to the Tories because they will support her OAS bill.

Weird.

The media reports I've seen quoted the tories as sugggesting Dhalla herself is putting that out in order to put pressure on their party, and that they don't think Dhalla would be "a good fit" with the Conservatives.

[msj]

[snip irrelevant ramblings that belong in a different thread]

In Brampton-Springdale, almost half the population is from south asia. Needless to say all three candidates will thus be South-Asian in just about every election.

Ruby Dhalla is the representative of the south asian community in Brampton-Springdale. That's why she would bring forward this kind of bill. Anyone who says bringing up her ethnicity is irrelevent is a fool.

If this is true about the riding demographics (and, my gawd, I'm going to be lazy and not bother to check) then she is doing a fine job of representing the interests of many of her constituents.

But, I know, heaven forbid if she considers the concerns of newish Canadians.

That's just not democratic....

[Argus]

I wouldn't call her dishonest. Just because you and I disagree with her does not mean she is being dishonest.

There are differences of opinion that are just differences of opinion.

Calling Africa a country is not a difference of opinon. It's stupid. And dare I point out that if a white male politician publicly referred to continents as countries the media would be all over it, mocking and ridiculing his education/intelligence?

But we dare not mock an ethnic woman, now dare we?

[msj]

Calling Africa a country is not a difference of opinon. It's stupid. And dare I point out that if a white male politician publicly referred to continents as countries the media would be all over it, mocking and ridiculing his education/intelligence?

But we dare not mock an ethnic woman, now dare we?

Huh?

You honestly don't see the difference between getting a fact wrong and a difference of perspective on OAS benefits and how many years one should wait to become eligible for a pro-rated benefit?

Let's try it this way - one is an obvious fact. Africa either is or is not a country (I know which one and don't really care if someone else gets it wrong).

The other is a perspective that considers many rules (existing) and proposed changes to the rules.

Not exactly an apples to apples comparison, now is it?

[Argus]

If this is true about the riding demographics (and, my gawd, I'm going to be lazy and not bother to check) then she is doing a fine job of representing the interests of many of her constituents.

As you failed to question anything else I wrote I take it you concur about the racist mentality of so many of Canada's ethnic community - yet have no real problem with it.

Yes, she is doing a fine job of representing south asians. However, this is one of numerous situations where the interests of south asians are not the interest of Canada. Another good reason why Citizenship should require a lot longer residency term than is presently the case.

But, I know, heaven forbid if she considers the concerns of newish Canadians.

That's just not democratic....

Heaven help a white politician who really only cares about the white population of his constituency, for the msj's of the world will howl with fury, but when ethnics do it meh, not a problem.

[Argus]

Huh?

You honestly don't see the difference between getting a fact wrong and a difference of perspective on OAS benefits and how many years one should wait to become eligible for a pro-rated benefi

Stockwell Day got the direction of a river wrong and it just about destroyed him. The media still mock him about it.

[msj]

Stockwell Day got the direction of a river wrong and it just about destroyed him. The media still mock him about it.

So?

The media are stupid now too?

Is this new?

I guess since everyone is stupid at some point in time then we're all stupid?

I really don't see where people are going with this.

[msj]

As you failed to question anything else I wrote I take it you concur about the racist mentality of so many of Canada's ethnic community - yet have no real problem with it.

No, I ignored it as being irrelevant to this topic.

Start a new thread if you want to discuss such issues.

Yes, she is doing a fine job of representing south asians. However, this is one of numerous situations where the interests of south asians are not the interest of Canada. Another good reason why Citizenship should require a lot longer residency term than is presently the case.

So those "south asians" are not Canadians?

Heaven help a white politician who really only cares about the white population of his constituency, for the msj's of the world will howl with fury, but when ethnics do it meh, not a problem.

I have no problem with any politician advancing issues for his constituents.

It is the issue I'm concerned with - not the colour of his/her skin.

[Moonbox]

I have no problem with any politician advancing issues for his constituents.

It is the issue I'm concerned with - not the colour of his/her skin.

The issue is clearly a matter of ethnicity and you can't even say it isn't. There's a reason the proposal is an embarrasment to the party and to Rhuby herself. It's so blatantly unfair to the average born and raised Canadian that the brightest minds in the world wouldn't be able to justify it, let alone a moron like Rhuby.

The fact that she proposed it at all demonstrates that she doesn't give a crap about the non-immigrant Canadian.

You can't just say "It wasn't my idea it was my constituents" and pretend you're not responsible for it. The drafting and presentation of the proposal is 100% her choice and if she proposed it knowing it would bomb she's at best an idiot. If she thought it was a reasonable idea then she's an even bigger idiot for thinking there was any merit to it.

[msj]

The issue is clearly a matter of ethnicity and you can't even say it isn't. There's a reason the proposal is an embarrasment to the party and to Rhuby herself. It's so blatantly unfair to the average born and raised Canadian that the brightest minds in the world wouldn't be able to justify it, let alone a moron like Rhuby.

To the extent that this issue affects Canadians who are immigrants (or who wish to bring their parents to Canada under the rules) then of course it is related to "ethnic" issues.

I have had no problem arguing the issue with Kimmy while focusing on the issue rather than whether or not Dhalla is "one of them."

Kimmy is one of the few here who can at least try to focus on the issue rather than the person.

The point remains that Argus' remarks are mostly bogus because they are based on an ad hominem attack "BECAUSE [Dhalla] is one of them" etc....

I think you are missing the distinction I have been trying to make - we should be focusing on the policy and whether or not it is good or bad (and why it is good or bad) rather than making errors about the origins of Dhalla based on her skin colour.

IOW - I want the ad hominem attack to stop.

Given that we are all in agreement that the policy change is poor I still don't see why there was any need to introduce such an attack in the first place.

The fact that she proposed it at all demonstrates that she doesn't give a crap about the non-immigrant Canadian.

You can't just say "It wasn't my idea it was my constituents" and pretend you're not responsible for it. The drafting and presentation of the proposal is 100% her choice and if she proposed it knowing it would bomb she's at best an idiot. If she thought it was a reasonable idea then she's an even bigger idiot for thinking there was any merit to it.

I don't see where she is claiming not to be responsible for the bill.

I also don't see where I have claimed that she is not responsible for the bill.

Maybe you should spend more time reading what is actually being argued rather than make up a bunch of nonsense about what you think someone is saying.

Oh, and perhaps you could lay off the ad hominem attacks on her being an "idiot" etc....

Once again - focus on the policy rather than the person and I will respect your position like I do Kimmy's.

Don't do that?

Well, then you're no better than Argus.

[Argus]

The point remains that Argus' remarks are mostly bogus because they are based on an ad hominem attack "BECAUSE [Dhalla] is one of them" etc....

That is not an ad hominum attack. It is a statement of fact. She is operating not on behalf of Canada or the constituency of Brampton-Springdale but on behalf of the Asian immigrant community of Brampton-Springdale. These are the people she represents, and she clearly knows that their opinion of her is more important than that of the broader community.

Just because your delicate political sensibilities flare up at discussing the motivation behind her bill rather than focussing on the bill itself is no reason more mature readers can't discuss such things.

[msj]

That is not an ad hominum attack. It is a statement of fact. She is operating not on behalf of Canada or the constituency of Brampton-Springdale but on behalf of the Asian immigrant community of Brampton-Springdale. These are the people she represents, and she clearly knows that their opinion of her is more important than that of the broader community.

Just because your delicate political sensibilities flare up at discussing the motivation behind her bill rather than focussing on the bill itself is no reason more mature readers can't discuss such things.

Is that a statement of fact like the "fact" that she's "one of them?"

Given that you didn't know anything about Dhalla please excuse me while I doubt your credibility while claiming to know something about an entire group of people.

Oh, and mature readers can discuss this issue without resorting to insults and accusations of being "one of them" (and I still don't understand how being from Winnipeg makes her on of "them").

[Mr.Canada]

Is that a statement of fact like the "fact" that she's "one of them?"

Given that you didn't know anything about Dhalla please excuse me while I doubt your credibility while claiming to know something about an entire group of people.

Oh, and mature readers can discuss this issue without resorting to insults and accusations of being "one of them" (and I still don't understand how being from Winnipeg makes her on of "them").

She has the same ethnic background as the majority of the immigrant populous of her riding and was catering to them. Brampton is only 49% white with the large majority being of East Asian descent, like Ms. Dhalla. This isn't hard to understand. Would she admit it? No, of coarse not but everyone knows this to be exactly what she was doing. I pass through her riding almost everyday on Hwy 7 coming from Halton and I'll tell you the vast majority of what I see, demographically, in that riding is East Asian.

Canada isn't allowed to keep racial demographic records, too bad but if you ever drive through there you'll see exactly as I have.

Nothing wrong with that, everybody has to live somewhere but she's representing her constituents who happen to be of East Asian descent the same as she is. I don't see anything wrong in saying this. It's naive to think that it doesn't matter when it's a core reason for an MP's behavior on a given matter.

Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[msj]

She has the same ethnic background as the majority of the immigrant populous of her riding and was catering to them. Brampton is only 49% white with the large majority being of East Asian descent, like Ms. Dhalla. This isn't hard to understand. Would she admit it? No, of coarse not but everyone knows this to be exactly what she was doing. I pass through her riding almost everyday on Hwy 7 coming from Halton and I'll tell you the vast majority of what I see, demographically, in that riding is East Asian.

Canada isn't allowed to keep racial demographic records, too bad but if you ever drive through there you'll see exactly as I have.

Nothing wrong with that, everybody has to live somewhere but she's representing her constituents who happen to be of East Asian descent the same as she is. I don't see anything wrong in saying this. It's naive to think that it doesn't matter when it's a core reason for an MP's behavior on a given matter.

Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you.

We seem to be going in circles stating the obvious.

The difference here, however, is that there is nothing wrong with being of "east asian descent" and that many real life Canadians (such as Dhalla) are of east asian descent (oh, and also of Winnipeg descent, too).

BFD.

We have determined that she is pushing a bill that at least some of the people in her riding probably favour - good of you to imply this, Mr. Canada.

We also appear to have determined that I consider a Canadian to be anyone born in this country (like Dhalla) and anyone who has come to Canada and attains citizenship.

As such, Dhalla, as a Canadian, is representing other Canadians within her riding by pushing this bill.

Once again, BFD.

One more thing - I think we are getting away from the gist of Argus's post all the way back on page one: I do not have a problem with her motivation being linked to her constituents ethnicity or heritage or whatever.

What I object to is his implied racism that Dhalla is nothing more than an immigrant pandering to other immigrants and "their" issues aren't "our" issues.

The fact that he automatically considers Dhalla an immigrant based on her name and/or her looks from the video is what is most bothersome especially when one considers the facts (that she is a Canadian citizen, has resided in Canada for all/most of her life, was born in Winnipeg, oh, and happens to not look white).

IOW, his entire premise is based on a personal attack of Dhalla being an immigrant when she is not an immigrant and when, even if she were an immigrant, it does not add an effective reason for why bill c-428 is a bad bill.

It's a bad bill for the reasons already outlined elsewhere above.

One does not need to stoop to Argus' ignorance of Dhalla's personal life to effectively argue the case.

Edited October 8, 2009 by msj

[jbg]

So those "south asians" are not Canadians?*****It is the issue I'm concerned with - not the colour of his/her skin.

Do you find racists under every rock?

[msj]

Do you find racists under every rock?

Lately I have.

Normally I just talk about economic issues since that's what interests me.

But every once in a while somebody pops up, like an Argus or a jbq and I've got to call them as I see them....

Now, about those "feral beasts" from whom Obama "came" ....

[jbg]

But every once in a while somebody pops up, like an Argus or a jbq and I've got to call them as I see them....

Who is "JBQ"?

[msj]

Who is "JBQ"?

That should be "jbg."

With the line underneath cutting off the little tag on the "g" it looked like "jbq."

Gotta check the eyes after the vacation.....

And to think that I'm going to be driving on Heraklion next week!

Edited October 9, 2009 by msj

[wyly]

She has the same ethnic background as the majority of the immigrant populous of her riding and was catering to them. Brampton is only 49% white with the large majority being of East Asian descent, like Ms. Dhalla. This isn't hard to understand. Would she admit it? N

there is no such scientific/genetic classification as race, we are all one specie...race is an invented social classification used for discriminatory practices...even under the old erroneous racial classification East Indians were still classified as "white" Caucasians...

[wyly]

Well, they're all targeted at "segments" of the population, but things like the child tax credit and the sports tax credit are available to anybody who can procreate, while Dhalla's plan is of benefit exclusively to immigrants who want to bring their parents to live in Canada.

I think, given all the worry about falling birth-rates, aging demographics, and so forth, that everybody should be agreeable that making it easier for people to afford to raise children is a praiseworthy objective. Conversely, I'm still stumped as to how bringing in old-people from abroad is of benefit to Canada as a nation.

Well, you compared it to tax-credits designed to encourage "positive" behavior, such as sports and transit passes and child tax credits... so I figured there must be some "positive" to this that I must be missing.

immigration of entire familes has always been part of Canada and the world's history...you don't leave aged parents behind to fend for themselves....

if Canada wants to attract highly educated immigrants to our shores we need to accept their parents as well, these people are not going to leave their parents behind in countries with no social systems to care for them...and if we don't do it the USA will gladly accept them, that would be our loss...

[Argus]

immigration of entire familes has always been part of Canada and the world's history...you don't leave aged parents behind to fend for themselves....

Actually for most of our history, immigrants tended to be young single men, and young couples. The journey was too expensive and arduous for old people to follow after.

if Canada wants to attract highly educated immigrants to our shores we need to accept their parents as well, these people are not going to leave their parents behind in countries with no social systems to care for them

Most of these people have very large extended families, and if "highly educated" immigrants come here and are succesful they should have no difficulty at all sending some money home to help support their parents.. The cost of living in third world countries, after all, is generally far, far below what it is in Canada.