Immigrants cost Canada $30 billion per year

[jacee]

On 10/8/2019 at 5:18 PM, WestCanMan said:

To be honest, Bill 21 isn't discriminatory. No one is allowed to display any religious symbols at all while they're working for the government. Not Christians, not Jews, not Sikhs, not Muslims, no one.

If it was just one group or another that would be discriminatory.

I haven't read the whole Bill but I would imagine that political expressions aren't allowed either. Eg, MAGA hats or Trudeau hats or Bloc hats, etc. 

If you wanted to make a stink though Zeitgeist, which I'm sure you probably do, you could make a point of the fact that their flag has Fleur-de-Lys all over it, and the flag flies at all of the schools and government buildings.

The Fleur de Lis is widely used in European Heraldry and I'm pretty sure that represents a mix of French Roman Catholicism and Monarchy. There are countries outside of France that use the symbol but they're all Christian. 

Getting to the point of ridiculousness, in a country that prides itself on freedom of religion and expression. 

[jacee]

On 10/8/2019 at 6:49 PM, Army Guy said:

Here is a new concept that we should all wrap our minds around, it's a new concept ready...how about we hire the best candidate for the job, male or female... Oh and by the way it is illegal to discriminate for any of those reasons... except when it is the government making the rules then it is ok to target specific people for their color of skin or gender, religious beliefs.....what we need is some common sense to prevail , but we are not ready for common sense just yet...

 

That's not new. It's the old concept. But since human judgement is always involved in those decisions, it turned out that the (mostly) white men in positions of authority still picked (mostly) white men, as they always had. So, yes, the patriarchy had to be 'interfered with' to force the issue. 

Oh well. Ho hum. Yawn. 

Old news. 

[jacee]

On 10/8/2019 at 10:07 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

I don't disagree with that.  I'm saying discriminating against white people and men etc. is not the answer.

Now if you do, you better be 100% sure, not 99.9% sure, that there is discrimination going on in that specific organization, and that in every single case without exception the EXACT number that is calculated in that specific organization and in that specific position as resulting from discrimination is replaced appropriately and exactly by the affirmative action.  Otherwise it's just as evil.  But of course this is rarely done and people just pull quota numbers out of thin air.

As for your CEO comment, we will likely never see equal #'s of male and female CEO's even with zero discrimination.  The reason is 1. more men tend to go into business fields than women, just like there are more females who graduate and work as medical doctors than men, 2. women who go into business won't strive for CEO positions at the same rate as men because some take time out of the work force to have and raise children, as well situations like single motherhood and caring for elderly parents that takes up more personal time.

Imbalances in gender and race are sometimes but not always due to discrimination.  There needs to be solid data in each case, like the resume studies you referred to.

There's lots of solid data.

I lived and worked through that era. For example, there were NOT more women doctors when affirmative action began, but only as a result of it - because the white men making medical school admission choices had to be forced to select more women, when qualifications were equal. 

Incompetent men were still generally hired and promoted to leadership positions more than competent women, and still continued to harass, demean and objectify women in the workplace,  especially women more competent than them. 

That's NOT discrimination against white men. It's a correction of discrimination against women, people of colour and other people marginalized by the white patriarchy, which was and is still over-represented in positions of authority. 

And you don't EVER get to mansplain women's reasons, unless you provide a link to valid and relevant research.

I can't believe we're still having this stupid debate. 

It's 2019 ffs.   

Edited October 10, 2019 by jacee

[Zeitgeist]

27 minutes ago, jacee said:

That's not new. It's the old concept. But since human judgement is always involved in those decisions, it turned out that the (mostly) white men in positions of authority still picked (mostly) white men, as they always had. So, yes, the patriarchy had to be 'interfered with' to force the issue. 

Oh well. Ho hum. Yawn. 

Old news. 

I can only think that you’re retired, because workplaces are very different today.  You have a better chance of adopting a child if you’re in a same sex marriage than a traditional one.  You have a better chance of getting into university or a profession as a woman than a man.  There is a major push from Equity Officers in HR to promote diversity, especially in positions of authority.  The hiring is usually done by Human Resources, which tends to be female-heavy.  If you want true fair hiring, remove names from resumes and conduct interviews over the phone.  While it’s true that we can never fully eliminate bias, prejudice is applied today in many different ways.  If you made an interview scorecard that gave additional points for intersectionalities, where would you draw the line?  We could talk about an applicant’s childhood traumas.  We could go back generations because we’re all victims of genetics.  We could blame social conditioning for all of society’s injustices.  Ignore the findings of neuroscience that prove that many human qualities, including male and female, are determined genetically.  At some point people need to be seen for what they bring to the table. Excuses are never a good preamble for a job applicant.  People should be judged for the content of their character.  Keep race, religion, colour, sexual orientation, etc. out of the conversation for hiring or else wear the mantle of supreme arbitor of everything.  

Edited October 10, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[jacee]

On 10/8/2019 at 10:26 PM, Zeitgeist said:

I actually fully support religious expression and a country’s right to recognize its religious roots, as long as no one is discriminated against on the basis of religion.  Perhaps this is an outlier view, but what concerns me about Bill 21 is that we’re cutting off our nose to spite our face, putting down all religious expression when the truth is that the real issue is religious or ideological expression that promotes hate or oppression.  It’s arguable that certain forms of religious dress are oppressive, such as the burka, but that doesn’t mean headscarves and crucifixes or yarmulkes should be banned.  It’s a draconian law that infringes on religious freedom, worse than Bill 101, Quebec’s fascist language law.  

I wonder ... can a man or woman still wear a turban or head scarf or veil if it isn't religious, just a fashion choice? 

Lol  

Retention of culture through language is a different issue. 

[Zeitgeist]

Just now, jacee said:

I wonder ... can a man or woman still wear a turban or head scarf or veil if it isn't religious, just a fashion choice? 

Lol  

Retention of culture through language is a different issue. 

I think Bill 21 is a problem.  You should be able to wear just about anything you want as long as it isn’t hateful or oppressive, religious or otherwise.  I don’t see why turbans or headscarves are issues.  Maybe the burqa crosses the oppressive line, but I wouldn’t impose a dress code law to remove it.  People should be able to celebrate their traditions.  Canada should be unapologetic about her French, English, Indigenous, and Judeo-Christian roots.  Perspectives change.  Historical fact doesn’t.  

[dialamah]

56 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You have a better chance of adopting a child if you’re in a same sex marriage than a traditional one.

Cite, please.

56 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

If you want true fair hiring, remove names from resumes and conduct interviews over the phone.

Can still hear voices and determine gender that way.   

 

56 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 At some point people need to be seen for what they bring to the table.

I agree that's the goal.  Yet, when left to their own devices, people hire according to color, gender and other perceived similarities.  If the dominant culture is European, that gives people perceived as being European a leg up.  If men in positions of power are seen as "normal" and females as exceptional, that'll give men a leg up. 

When JT appointed 50% women,   those women were seen, by a certain population cohort, as less deserving because they were women; they could not have been chosen on merit because clearly some more qualified men would had to have been passed over.  It's generally assumed men gain positions of power through merit and generally assumed women gain power through other means, such as sex, family influence, powerful (male) friend influence, affirmative action type programs.  (Disclaimer: not everybody, not always, and it used to be worse).

And that's why we, as a society, have to "force" equality through things like affirmative action.

This might amuse people:  partner and I were watching a classic TV program from 1952, including ads.  An ad appeared telling us how women coveted some certain watchband; a selling point was that it expanded and could be pushed up her arm while she was doing dishes.  My partner, in the kitchen cleaning up after dinner, almost fell over laughing.  We've come a long way, but still have some ways to go. 

 

Edited October 10, 2019 by dialamah

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

Getting to the point of ridiculousness, in a country that prides itself on freedom of religion and expression. 

A lot about Quebec is ridiculous. They operate on a different wavelength. They've crossed the line which we would call racist a long time ago by the way they deal with the english or any other language aside from french.

If you own a business in Quebec the government regulates the ratio of the sign sizes that you have to post outside. If you want an english sign the font can only be a certain percentage of the size of a french sign. They're trying to stop people from saying "Bonjour, hello!" to customers who walk into their store now. They call it "cultural erosion" or something.

They're discriminating against all other religions and languages equally. I don't think it passes the Canadian sniff test but it's not just about people who want to wear burkas or turbans. It's about everything that's not essentially french in nature.

It's a losing battle, but it's nothing for any one particular group can feel singled out about. And people are still free to wear or say things in public, just not in gov't buildings. I think it's perfect in schools.

Edited October 10, 2019 by WestCanMan

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Cite, please.

Can still hear voices and determine gender that way.   

 

I agree that's the goal.  Yet, when left to their own devices, people hire according to color, gender and other perceived similarities.  If the dominant culture is European, that gives people perceived as being European a leg up.  If men in positions of power are seen as "normal" and females as exceptional, that'll give men a leg up. 

When JT appointed 50% women, a  those women were seen, by a certain population cohort, as less deserving because they were women; they could not have been chosen on merit because clearly some more qualified men would had to have been passed over.  It's generally assumed men gain positions of power through merit and generally assumed women gain power through other means, such as sex, family influence, powerful (male) friend influence, affirmative action type programs.  (Disclaimer: not everybody, not always, and it used to worse).

And that's why we, as a society, have to "force" equality through things like affirmative action.

This might amuse people:  partner and I were watching a classic TV program from 1952, including ads.  Partner is in the kitchen cleaning up after dinner, as he often does.  An ad appeared telling us how women coveted some certain watchband; a selling point was that it expanded and could be pushed up her arm while she was doing dishes.  My partner, in the kitchen cleaning up after dinner, almost fell over laughing.  We've come a long way, but still have some ways to go. 

 

Men are today’s losers, not women.  More women are in institutions of higher learning than men.  It’s also more socially acceptable for women not to work at all than it is for men, and many women make that life choice.  Women can also have fulfilling careers and still choose to stay home without social fallout.  

“In 2015, the most recent year for which data is available, 72.5 percent of females who had recently graduated high school were enrolled in a two-year or four-year college, compared to 65.8 percent of men.Nov 27, 2017”.   The Atlantic 

“Stereotypically, it is supposed to be women who care more about marrying and having children. The adults in this survey, though, did not concur. Many more men than women said that being married was essential to living a fulfilling life (37 percent versus 24 percent), and more men than women said the same about having kids (40 percent versus 33 percent). Psychology Today 

”In the United States, males are four times more likely to die by suicide than females, although more women than men report suicide attempts and self-harm with suicidalintentions. Male suicide rates are far higher than females in all age groups (the ratio varies from 3:1 to 10:1).” Wikipedia 

My point in saying all of this is that men are not faring as well as women these days in terms of education, mental health, and desirability in relationships.  The last thing they need is hiring or admissions bias against them.  The intersectionalities points card can only backfire in social outcomes.  

Similarly for the fate of immigrants: If Canadians with certain backgrounds feel that they are at a disadvantage in hiring or school admissions, the inevitable result will be anti-immigrant sentiment.  Keep race, religion, colour, sexual orientation, etc. out of hiring/admissions criteria.  Be fair.  Two wrongs don’t make a right.  

[Teena]

23 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think Bill 21 is a problem.  You should be able to wear just about anything you want as long as it isn’t hateful or oppressive, religious or otherwise.  I don’t see why turbans or headscarves are issues.  Maybe the burqa crosses the oppressive line, but I wouldn’t impose a dress code law to remove it.  People should be able to celebrate their traditions.  Canada should be unapologetic about her French, English, Indigenous, and Judeo-Christian roots.  Perspectives change.  Historical fact doesn’t.  

And I would throw a party if Bill 21 went Canada-wide! Where is my right that I don't want my children being taught by a woman in a Hijab or man in a Turban....etc. And you also say the Hijab is not oppressive. Check out the rest of her clothing. She is covered from head to toe. They wear long sleeve and covered right up usually down to the ankle. Very oppressive.

 

Edited October 11, 2019 by Teena

[Cannucklehead]

10 minutes ago, Teena said:

And I would throw a party if Bill 21 went Canada-wide! Where is my right that I don't want my children being taught by a woman in a Hijab or man in a Turban....etc. And you also say the Hijab is not oppressive. Check out the rest of her clothing. She is covered from head to toe. They wear long sleeve and covered right up usually down to the ankle. Very oppressive.

For swimming they wear this: 

 

Do you really think that if teachers took off a hijab or a turban their teaching methodologies or ideologies would be any different?  

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

People should be able to celebrate their traditions.

Not all traditions - religious or cultural - should be celebrated.  Nor tolerated, or promoted.

There are some religious and cultural traditions that deserve no space in Canada.

 

Edited October 10, 2019 by Goddess

[dialamah]

44 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

If Canadians with certain backgrounds feel

Feelings are not facts.  There is still plenty of evidence that immigrants are disadvantaged in the workplace.   

47 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

men are not faring as well as women these days in terms of education, mental health, and desirability in relationships

I agree with this, but I think it has to do with factors other than affirmative action programs.  Men are feeling more displaced as women become more financially independent and powerful.  Men have long viewed there role as provider and leader, and that role is no longer as available to them; it's a shift we, as a society, should be helping men adjust to.  Equal parenting expectations are one way that men can regain their sense of being important to their families, for example.  Those kinds of changes are slowly happening, but I do agree that many men are struggling right now. 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, jacee said:

Getting to the point of ridiculousness, in a country that prides itself on freedom of religion and expression. 

This coming from someone who does not believe in freedom of religion or expression!

[DogOnPorch]

27 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Not all traditions - religious or cultural - should be celebrated.  Nor tolerated, or promoted.

There are some religious and cultural traditions that deserve no space in Canada.

 

 

Like ritual animal sacrifice to appease a certain bloodthirsty desert Moon god.

[Goddess]

21 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Those kinds of changes are slowly happening, but I do agree that many men are struggling right now. 

Sometimes I think what they are struggling with is adjusting to the idea that giving up some of the power they have traditionally had over women is not discrimination or misandry.  Coupled with a subconscious fear that women will wield power to purposely keep men down, like they have done to women for centuries.

We just want equality.  Not payback.

Edited October 10, 2019 by Goddess

[Teena]

46 minutes ago, Cannucklehead said:

Do you really think that if teachers took off a hijab or a turban their teaching methodologies or ideologies would be any different?  

Hey simply put ---- you don't know what my religion is out in public and nor should I know yours  And I have mentioned in posts before that my interactions with Muslim women have not been good and on more than one occasion. They would like to see all of us Canadian women covered up. Seriously. If your a woman, go out and hang around with some of them. It won't take you long to figure it out.  Remember they have to sit at the back of the Mosque. I can't believe you don't look at this as being oppressed. Ladies first? Not.

[Shady]

43 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Feelings are not facts.  There is still plenty of evidence that immigrants are disadvantaged in the workplace.   

I agree with this, but I think it has to do with factors other than affirmative action programs.  Men are feeling more displaced as women become more financially independent and powerful.  Men have long viewed there role as provider and leader, and that role is no longer as available to them; it's a shift we, as a society, should be helping men adjust to.  Equal parenting expectations are one way that men can regain their sense of being important to their families, for example.  Those kinds of changes are slowly happening, but I do agree that many men are struggling right now. 

That may have been people’s views 30 years ago.  But that’s long since passed.

[jacee]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think Bill 21 is a problem.  You should be able to wear just about anything you want as long as it isn’t hateful or oppressive, religious or otherwise.  I don’t see why turbans or headscarves are issues.  Maybe the burqa crosses the oppressive line, but I wouldn’t impose a dress code law to remove it.  People should be able to celebrate their traditions.  Canada should be unapologetic about her French, English, Indigenous, and Judeo-Christian roots.  Perspectives change.  Historical fact doesn’t.  

My somewhat sarcastic point is that turbans, headscarves and veils/scarves covering face/balaclavas have always been available fashion choices, and must remain so (weather, bad hair days, etc). Nobody's business.

And who determines whether I wear it for religious or fashion reasons? Nobody's business.

For that reason, Bill 21 will be struck down by the courts, I believe.

To constrain religious fashion is to constrain everybody's fashion, and then it is ridiculous.

I can cover my face for weather, but a Muslim woman can't? 

Ridiculous.

Edited October 10, 2019 by jacee

[dialamah]

17 minutes ago, Teena said:

They would like to see all of us Canadian women covered up.  If your a woman, go out and hang around with some of them

My sister is Muslim, she never wears hijab, not even in Egypt where she lives.   I've worked with a few Muslim women who never wore hijab, here in Canada.  No hijab-wearing Muslim woman I've ever spoken with has ever suggested that all Canadian women should be covered.  Just the opposite, in fact, they have said it's up to the individual.

Your comment reeks of ignorance and bigotry. 

[jacee]

1 hour ago, Teena said:

And I would throw a party if Bill 21 went Canada-wide! Where is my right that I don't want my children being taught by a woman in a Hijab or man in a Turban....etc. And you also say the Hijab is not oppressive. Check out the rest of her clothing. She is covered from head to toe. They wear long sleeve and covered right up usually down to the ankle. Very oppressive.

For swimming they wear this: 

 

Ridiculous.

I'll wear whatever the fk I want for whatever reason I want.

You can't limit only some people - just Muslims and Sikhs for example. You have to limit everyone. 

No woman can ever wear a turban or a headscarf or a face covering for any reason?

All women must expose skin to go swimming?

Ridiculous! Fk off with that nonsense. 

Edited October 10, 2019 by jacee

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Feelings are not facts.  There is still plenty of evidence that immigrants are disadvantaged in the workplace.   

I agree with this, but I think it has to do with factors other than affirmative action programs.  Men are feeling more displaced as women become more financially independent and powerful.  Men have long viewed there role as provider and leader, and that role is no longer as available to them; it's a shift we, as a society, should be helping men adjust to.  Equal parenting expectations are one way that men can regain their sense of being important to their families, for example.  Those kinds of changes are slowly happening, but I do agree that many men are struggling right now. 

But the disadvantages for men are baked into the cake of modern laws, judicial precedents, and biology.  Men cannot reproduce with a simple trip to the sperm bank, they have no legal rights over the continuation or abortion of a pregnancy, men are often disadvantaged in custody decisions, it is socially frowned upon for them to take paternity leaves, and to be unemployed.  It’s all well and good to say that social engineering can change things, but some of this is very biological, not just the ability to give birth but even the male instinct to leave the home, compete for resources, and provide.  In fact, it is the protector and provider status that many women look for in a man. I won’t get into the fetishizing of male dominance that many women secretly or publicly seek out in the media, such as in Fifty Shades of Grey.  I know some of what I’m saying might be contentious, but I stand by it.  You can find these positions in the feminist writing of Camille Paglia and the social psychology of Jordan Peterson.  

On a more serious note, I do worry about the impact of these factors on male suicide rates, crime, and unemployment.   Young men today of all races are vulnerable.  Perhaps immigrant males coming from more traditional societies feel more elevated by their source cultures, but they have other struggles.  

I think we have to be extremely careful not to advantage certain groups or any one group through policy.  There is always blowback.  

We also shouldn’t apologize or carry around guilt for happening to be born into a certain race, gender or country.  Our official languages are just fine, as are our cultural traditions.  

Stick to preventing discrimination and oppression in the workplace, schools, and society at large and we can’t go wrong in safeguarding the Charter protections we value. 

Edited October 10, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Teena]

9 minutes ago, jacee said:

Ridiculous.

I'll wear whatever the fk I want for whatever reason I want.

You can't limit only some people - just Muslims and Sikhs for example. You have to limit everyone. 

No woman can ever wear a turban or a headscarf or a face covering for any reason?

All women must expose skin to go swimming?

Ridiculous! Fk off with that nonsense. 

Hey calm down! Every one is allowed their opinion. No need for swearing Jacee  

And limit everyone? What are you talking about? Bill 21 is for public service workers and I happen to agree with it. Many people agree with it!  As for the "Burkini", I don't get it. The Muslim men can swim in shorts and no shirt and soak up some sun ... lucky them!

[Cannucklehead]

I actually own a balaclava that I bought in Green Bay (yes I am a cheese head).

 

Walk into some places with one of those on and you'll get some really nasty looks, even though I am caucasian.

[Teena]

35 minutes ago, jacee said:

My somewhat sarcastic point is that turbans, headscarves and veils/scarves covering face/balaclavas have always been available fashion choices, and must remain so (weather, bad hair days, etc). Nobody's business.

And who determines whether I wear it for religious or fashion reasons? Nobody's business.

For that reason, Bill 21 will be struck down by the courts, I believe.

To constrain religious fashion is to constrain everybody's fashion, and then it is ridiculous.

I can cover my face for weather, but a Muslim woman can't? 

Ridiculous.

Really. Well I seen my first live Hijab 15 years ago where I live. Other than then some old ladies wore a head covering for the rain and I am pretty sure they were plastic? Also seen many Burka's and Hijab's watching TV years ago with wars in the middle east, always fighting  and killing over religion. Seen many of them on TV only. Growing up in Ontario I did not see any religious head coverings like we do now. Covering your face for weather is a whole different story. If you have a scarf wrapped around your face and neck because it's so cold out ... and then when you enter the bank or wherever, you would remove it once out of the cold to talk or shop or whatever. You are not making sense.