Big Guy Posted July 28, 2014 Author Report Posted July 28, 2014 I personally favour the melting pot approach instead of paying for multiculturalism.Do you believe that any foreign government that does not support multiculturalism is bigoted? If we both agree that bigotry is "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself." and multiculturalism is "the cultural diversity of communities within a given society and the policies that promote this diversity" then no I do not. Foreign governments may choose to be isolationist and very selective of who they allow to immigrate. They have the right to dictate the rate at which people assimilate into the new culture and swear allegiance to only that government.. The "melting pot" I believe was Canada's previous policy which allowed immigrants to assimilate at their own rate but not to support the diversity. It worked very well at the time. I believe that Canada can support and celebrate the diversity of the numerous cultures that are allowed to exist here. I do not think that it takes away from our nationality but instead acts to strengthen our position in the world as accepting of the differing nature of man. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
On Guard for Thee Posted July 28, 2014 Report Posted July 28, 2014 If we both agree that bigotry is "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself." and multiculturalism is "the cultural diversity of communities within a given society and the policies that promote this diversity" then no I do not. Foreign governments may choose to be isolationist and very selective of who they allow to immigrate. They have the right to dictate the rate at which people assimilate into the new culture and swear allegiance to only that government.. The "melting pot" I believe was Canada's previous policy which allowed immigrants to assimilate at their own rate but not to support the diversity. It worked very well at the time. I believe that Canada can support and celebrate the diversity of the numerous cultures that are allowed to exist here. I do not think that it takes away from our nationality but instead acts to strengthen our position in the world as accepting of the differing nature of man. I don't recall Canada ever being referred to as a "melting pot", but then again I don't think there is much appreciable difference between that term and what we are usually referred to in Canada as a "mosaic". I don't think it's all that hard to pick out the ethnic diversities either side of the border. Quote
-TSS- Posted July 28, 2014 Report Posted July 28, 2014 As demographics like to place people into three different age-brackets and that is: 0-14 15-64 65+ a couple of years ago the Finnish statistical bureau said that the number of 65+-people had exceeded that of the 0-14. That really is a demographic disaster as a no country can cope in the long run if the number of 65+ people is higher than the 0-14. However, doing anything about it is a forlorn hope as those 65+ people are a large proportion of voters who don't like to be told that they are a nuisance. What could you do about that situation anyway? In Canada increase immigration. Yes, a good idea. In Finland increase immigration. No, a very bad idea even though our political establishment are pushing for that exact solution. Namely, Canada, Australia, the US, Britain they are magnet-countries which attract the best people from all over the world. They can pick and choose the ones they want and reject the ones they dislike. Finland is a backwater somewhere near Siberia which attracts no-one with real skills but as we do have a very generous welfare-system we do attract a lot of illiterate third world peasants who contribute nothing to the economy but are a drain on the social services. Importing people like them to tackle the problem of ageing population is like curing hangover by having another drink. Quote
Big Guy Posted July 28, 2014 Author Report Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) I hope that we will be able to use our multicultural approach to the benefit of the rest of the world. Second and third generation Canadians have the benefits of their parents home language and culture as well as an understanding of Canadian democracy and lifestyle. They are well educated as are all Canadians and could be exceptional ambassadors to the rest of the world. I would like to see our federal government create a voluntary international organization similar to the Peace Corps of the USA except that this volunteer "army" would be set up according to cultural groups or language groups. We have an unemployment problem for young graduates who are looking for experience in their fields and spreading the essence humanitarianism in the world. If/when a conflict or tragedy is developing somewhere in the world the Canadian contingent which shares the same culture (through their parents) and language would be deployed into the region to assist. Because of their understanding of the culture and language they would not be seen as invaders or occupation troops but as trusted expatriots. I believe that we are the only country that has an existing (and building) core of energetic young educated people who could form this "Canuck Corps". Edited July 28, 2014 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Argus Posted July 28, 2014 Report Posted July 28, 2014 As demographics like to place people into three different age-brackets and that is: 0-14 15-64 65+ a couple of years ago the Finnish statistical bureau said that the number of 65+-people had exceeded that of the 0-14. That really is a demographic disaster as a no country can cope in the long run if the number of 65+ people is higher than the 0-14. However, doing anything about it is a forlorn hope as those 65+ people are a large proportion of voters who don't like to be told that they are a nuisance. What could you do about that situation anyway? In Canada increase immigration. Yes, a good idea. In Finland increase immigration. No, a very bad idea even though our political establishment are pushing for that exact solution. Even so, immigration rates equal to 1% of the already resident population would not prevent workforce growth in Canada dipping to historic lows in the 2020s, and the immigration that would be needed—even with major efforts to attract a larger share of younger people—to maintain workforce growth at its recent rate would be well outside the realm of economic or political feasibility. Aging is more difficult yet. Increasing immigration to 1% of population a year without varying its age distribution would slow the rise in the OAD ratio only marginally. And raising immigration to this level while trying to select only very young immigrants with children, so as to lower dramatically the average age of immigrants, would still not prevent a historic rise in the ratio. Only extreme and unpalatable policies, such as rapidly increasing immigration from less than 1% of the population to well over 3% for decades, could come close to stabilizing the OAD ratio. http://www.diversityintheworkplace.ca/newsletters/feb_2010/EffectsofMassImmigration.pdf A study by the RAND Corporation (Grant et al., 2004), for example, looked at the demographic consequences of low fertility in Europe and reached conclusions broadly similar to ours on the question of whether immigration could compensate for the demographic challenges faced by EU nations. Schertmann (1992) shows that a constant inflow of immigrants, even relatively young ones, does not necessarily rejuvenate low fertility populations, and may in the long term actually contribute to population aging. Specific studies on Canada (United Nations, 2004; Denton and Spencer, 2004; Guillemette and Robson, 2006) have found that the dynamic of aging among the resident population is so strong that immigration’s ability to affect it is remarkably small. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/display.aspx?id=13504 The noted French-Canadian demographer Jacques Henripin (1988) examined the consequences of such a plan, that is, to build up the population of Quebec through high levels of immigration. His conclusion was simple. The plan would not work! His reasoning was straightforward. At the level of immigration necessary to restore population growth to past rates, the effect would be to change the composition of that which its proposers sought to protect. By the early decades of the twenty-first century, he predicted that at these levels of inflow the foreign-born arrivals would dominate the population. For example, at levels of inflow that would eliminate the fertility deficit, the population of Montreal Island by mid twenty-first century would be 60% foreign-born. It was his contention that such inflows would have a profound effect on the cultural or ethnic or language composition of the host region/country. http://immigrationreform.ca/CMFiles/Research/Immigration%20and%20an%20aging/what-is-the-role-of-immigration-in-canadas-future-alan-g-green-mcgill-queens-university-press.pdf Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
-1=e^ipi Posted July 29, 2014 Report Posted July 29, 2014 Proportional representation and a fractured parliament with dozens of parties means even tiny religious parties with a few MPs wield power way out of proportion to their actual support in the population. It's not the political system that gives power to those far right religious parties in Isreal, it's the culture. Quote
Argus Posted July 29, 2014 Report Posted July 29, 2014 It's not the political system that gives power to those far right religious parties in Isreal, it's the culture. Without the pizza parliament they could be easily ignored. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
-1=e^ipi Posted July 29, 2014 Report Posted July 29, 2014 Without the pizza parliament they could be easily ignored. Or they might hijack a main party, like religious nuts in the US republican party. Quote
jbg Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 Or they might hijack a main party, like religious nuts in the US republican party. Or the abortionists in the Liberal Party? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 ....Or the communists in the NDP. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 Or the abortionists in the Liberal Party? ....Or the communists in the NDP. Maybe but I'm betting these are just more characterizations that hijacked parties like to use to distract from their apparent hijacked state. That's not to say they're still not all hijacked, because they clearly are but no where near as much to the above as to the influence of money and power. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
On Guard for Thee Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 ....Or the communists in the NDP. Or the whacko's in the Tea Party that say the US is not a democracy. Who knows, maybe they're right come to think of it. Quote
The_Squid Posted July 30, 2014 Report Posted July 30, 2014 Or the abortionists in the Liberal Party? what's an "abortionist"? And can you provide a cite for these people taking over the Liberal party? Quote
jbg Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 what's an "abortionist"? And can you provide a cite for these people taking over the Liberal party?Justin Trudeau's pronouncement on the mandatory positions of caucus MP's? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
The_Squid Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) Justin Trudeau's pronouncement on the mandatory positions of caucus MP's? What is an abortionist? Did these same "abortionists" take over the Conservative Party? I recall their leader saying that abortion will never come up for a vote while he is PM. Is Harper an "abortionist"? Edited July 31, 2014 by The_Squid Quote
jbg Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 What is an abortionist? Did these same "abortionists" take over the Conservative Party? I recall their leader saying that abortion will never come up for a vote while he is PM. Is Harper an "abortionist"? I used an inartful term. What I meant was Justin's decision to exclude any pro-lifer from the LPC caucus. I personally am pro-choice but I don't believe a party should insist on orthodoxy on that or most single issues. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
The_Squid Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 I used an inartful term. What I meant was Justin's decision to exclude any pro-lifer from the LPC caucus. I personally am pro-choice but I don't believe a party should insist on orthodoxy on that or most single issues. Votes on abortion would be whipped votes. Happens all the time. And is only different in semantics to Harper's position of never having a vote to begin with. If this is the platform of the party, it makes sense to want candidates with that viewpoint. If you are "pro life",and this topic is all-important to you, vote for the Christian Heritage Party (or whatever the bat-shit crazy religious party is these days). Quote
jbg Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 Votes on abortion would be whipped votes. Happens all the time. And is only different in semantics to Harper's position of never having a vote to begin with. If this is the platform of the party, it makes sense to want candidates with that viewpoint. If the vote is "whipped" than the personal beliefs of the MP's should be of no concern to Justin. As Trudeau the smarter father and elder stated, an MP is just not an important person 100 yards from Parliament Hill. If you are "pro life",and this topic is all-important to you, vote for the Christian Heritage Party (or whatever the bat-shit crazy religious party is these days).Not bloody likely. I am either pro-choice or pro-abortion, however you want to characterize it. I am also Jewish. I know Canada basically lacks a Jewish population but we do exist. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
The_Squid Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 If the vote is "whipped" than the personal beliefs of the MP's should be of no concern to Justin. As Trudeau the smarter father and elder stated, an MP is just not an important person 100 yards from Parliament Hill. Not bloody likely. I am either pro-choice or pro-abortion, however you want to characterize it. I am also Jewish. I know Canada basically lacks a Jewish population but we do exist. I didn't mean you as in specifically jbg should vote for them... I meant you in a general way... I should have said "people" instead of "you"... Quote
guyser Posted July 31, 2014 Report Posted July 31, 2014 I know Canada basically lacks a Jewish population but we do exist.I suppose if you want to call 380,000 people 'basically lacking'............. Quote
jbg Posted August 1, 2014 Report Posted August 1, 2014 I suppose if you want to call 380,000 people 'basically lacking'............. Where is Canada's synagogue then? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted August 3, 2014 Report Posted August 3, 2014 Canada's synagogue?Yeah. I hear Canada has one. Where is it? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Argus Posted August 4, 2014 Report Posted August 4, 2014 Yeah. I hear Canada has one. Where is it? Over there on the left, next block over. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
John Charlton Posted August 4, 2014 Report Posted August 4, 2014 English is made up of several different languages, Canada is made up of many different people who live in peace. Since we thrive on being peace keepers and push and pull as one when needed. What unites us all is the peace that we send to others and the pride of being able to live as one. Sure we have our inner issues and problems. But none of those has managed to crack the shell of Canadian Multicultual PEACE. People leave everything behind in there home lands to live in Canadian multicultial PEACE Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.