Minorities and polling stations

[geoffrey]

So let me see if I have this right

You went to vote and found to many darkies for your liking working at the place.

You were so intimidated by the darkies that this may prevent you from voting in the future.

This seems to me to be a problem that will work itself out in about a generation or two.

Not me, this was Leafless that raised the concerns. I was saying his concerns were reasonable.

My polling place was completely accurate of the make-up of my community.

[Yaro]

Not me, this was Leafless that raised the concerns. I was saying his concerns were reasonable.

My polling place was completely accurate of the make-up of my community.

My apologize, my post was directed at leafless, I should have specified.

However his point isn't reasonable at all, in fact its incredibly hypocritical for a guy who is so against affirmative action to take his position its incredibly sad that he didn't reason it out far enough for that to be obvious. Or maybe he doesn't care, in the past he’s definitely shown that propensity.

Racism, against minorities is not just, Racism based against majorities is not just. Neither is the greater evil. His position is clearly that there were to many ethnics involved when his position should be who cares how many ethnic workers there were and who cares how many white workers there were unless of course he is simply admitting a base bias against ethnic groups or he considers it the governments job to insure quota's

[Leafless]

Yaro

You wrote- " His positon should be how many ethnic workers were there and who cares how many white workers there were unless of course he is simply admitting a base bias against ethnic groups or he considers it the governments job to insure quota's."

Thanks for telling me what my positon should be (grin).

If you think multiculturalism in this country is working, good for you.

All I am basically saying is that the ethnic population of Canada should be represented to federal, provincial public jobs proportionate to their population or there will be problems.

For instance why are ethnics so eager to be involved in our politcal system (especially younger people).

I am not being biased when I say this as it has been demonstrated that minority filteration into our political system can work against majority concerns both legal and ethical and even against national security.

Can you tell me for instance why the prosecution concerning the Air India fiasco was not successful in laying charges despite the tremendous amount of money spent on that event? What I suggest in this particular case is that the concentration of so many Canadians of a another culture and their associated political ideologies in the same area as made this an impossible task.

Can you tell me in the Ottawa area why francophones hold around 70% of federal public service positons even though there Ottawa population is no where close to that fiqure or on a national basis Quebec's population is no where near that 70%.

Can you tell me why Mahar Arar is pursuing his case with such vigor in the pursuit of a large lawsuit even though he is the author of his own misfortune a man who holds dual citizenship and a man who knows he should have remained in Canada for his own personal safety?

Can you tell me why so called racial profiling is now the easy way out concerning crimes committed by certain cultural minorities and in many cases major charges thrown out as well as more minor ones thanks to Charter rights which in many cases work against our system of law and order.

Yes Yaro,I do want to see anything associated to the public purse and associated with politics and integration associated with numbers allowing fair representation of all cultures with integration made manatory to avoid the clustering of cultures with different politcal ideolgies that exist in Canada to cause the types of cultural problems that are on the rise.

These cultural problems will be the root cause of a dysfunctional Canada. Just check out T.O. another one.

[mar]

Leafless, I don't think there's a lot of point in addressing your .... what? ... they're not arguments, they're not observations...call them suppositions. However, a couple too bizarre to let pass:

" For instance why are ethnics so eager to be involved in our politcal system"

Perhaps because they believe in it? You thinks that might be possible?

"Can you tell me for instance why the prosecution concerning the Air India fiasco was not successful in laying charges despite the tremendous amount of money spent on that event?"

The entire Air India prosecution was bungled, mishandled and at times illegal. If you want to be angry at something be angry that prosecutors and others paid by taxpayers money seemed totally incapable of putting together a successful prosecution and CSIS chose to destroy evidence. You should also be grateful that Canada still has judges who will not allow the crown to be rewarded for activities that were, at best, questionable. The tragedy on tragedy is that those paid to do so were incapable of investigating and prosecting this matter; as a result, the guilty went unapprehended.

I don't see much point in going on. Clearly you regard any activity by anyone who doesn't fit your criteria of...what? a "real canadian?" as suspicious. You can dress it up anyway you want but its simply racial bigotry. Its as simple as that. Your opinions aren't based on anything but a deep seated belief that your position as a caucasian male is somehow under attack.

It is this strain among Conservative supporters and some Conservative MP's and party people that makes most reasonable people suspicious. I guess time will tell whether the Conservative party represents these types of views.

[Argus]

But Argus brings up a good point and that is does anyone know what exactly what is the criteria and qualifications necessary concerning the recruiting of polling station personnel and obviously ethnic representation has a bearing.

This is the most ridiculous argument I have heard on this website yet. For one, how would you have an ethnic gang type problem in an 80% white area ?

You're kidding, right? I recall a Toronto police superintendant once got into trouble for stating that while Blacks made up just 5% of his division they were responsible for 95% of the violent crime. Certainly in my area, Blacks (Somalians) are responsible for most street crime, and swarmings are virtually always commited by Somalians, with a few Lebanese gangs thrown in.

For two, ethnic gang problems are not ethnic vs. white. They are usually ethnic vs. ethnic.

Usually does not mean always, as those shoppers on Boxing Day discovered.

So what is it you are really saying here Leafless ? For most of my adult life I have lived in areas where white people are the minority. I have never been afraid to vote or had any type of fear or intimidation at a polling station.

I think most people would question if the local whatever they walked into was wildly disproportionate to the population outside the doors. For example, if I walked into my local government office, and everyone behind the counter was Black, I would wonder why. Who wouldn't? If I went to a local school and everyone in the class was White, I'd find that odd. If I went into a restaurant and discovered the staff and customers were all Chinese - and it wasn't a Chinese restaurant, I'd find that distinctly strange. Well, not in BC, perhaps, but here in Ottawa.

[BubberMiley]

What if it was a chinese restaurant?

[Argus]

And some of them hate our guts and think we are immoral scum and that all our women are whores, and that Sharia law should be put in place in Canada.

And do you have some way of knowing that those are the people that were at Leafless' polling station? Because if you don't, you have no business attributing those beliefs to them.

I don't know or not know. As has already been pointed out, the problem with multiculturalism, between a "community of communities" is that one community is largely unknown to the other. We all live in our little ethnic ghettos and experience our own little cultural festivals and cling to our seperate ideas of right and wrong. But when you seperate people (if not geographically, then culturally) you create suspicion. One of the primary reasons Jews were distrusted and feared over the centuries was their habit of settling into seperate ghetoes. People fear what they don't know or understand, and so all sorts of rumors arose about Jews, all sorts of distrust and suspicion, in which any kind of story could be taken as truth. Seperation breeds distrust. And even if we and other ethnic groups live amongst each other, we mostly associate only with our own. They have their own satellite programs, their own newspapers, their own festivals, their own bars and clubs, their own religious places, their language and beliefs.

What do we know about the seperate communities? In a lot of cases, what we read in the papers and see on TV, and by and large that's not good. Naturally enough, of course, for the media focusses on bad news. But there's more to it than that. With seperate communities, and seperate cultural values, you have seperate priorities, seperate and often divergant opinons on how the world should be run. What could one see in a polling station staffed entirely by ethnics? Well, by cliche', people who were beholden to their local Liberal candidate, perhaps? People who had a different value set, a different set of priorities, perhaps, being newcomers, less commitment to democracy, less tolerance for different opinions and beliefs, people more likely to cheat at elections? Who knows. But one would find it distinctly odd unless one lived in the midst of a very, very cosmopolitan area.

What I would attribute to them would be based on my own experiences as someone who used to live in a largely Muslim (Lebanese/Somalian) area - and I'm afraid the views garnered from that experience would not be favorable. Throughout history, all communities have had the mindset of an "US" and a "THEM", and to me, visible minorities are "THEM", in large part because almost all the ones I've known were immigrants from third world nations with fairly primitive culture systems which in many respects were hostile to my own cultural values. If more of them were born and raised as Canadians, that would change, of course. But so far I run into few "Canadian" visible minorities.

[Argus]

Geoffrey, the point is that you don't know who was at Leafless' polling station, what ethnic minority they belonged to, or what individual beliefs they held. I doubt Leafless did, either.

My husband and I are both Canadian, but I am of European descent and he is of East Indian descent. Does that make my presence at a polling station more legitimate than his? When my children go to vote, will the fact that they were born and raised in Canada matter, or will it just be the fact that they have a darker pigment to their skin? Does their skin colour give them less of a stake in Canadian politics? I guarantee you they don't think of themselves as having less say than a white person. The unthinking judgments being expressed here are worthy of the Southern states 50 years ago.

Or your local mosque or Hindu or Sikh temple, right?

[Argus]

Ethnic minorities don't do enough to eliminate the radicals and freaks from their ranks.

How do you suppose they should do that? Shotgun?

You know, through my work, and because I used to live in an area which was more than half made up of immigrants, I have come to know a number of them, and have discussions with them. Whenever the discussion veers toward radicals they will give a sort of "tut tut" head shake in condemning them - briefly, and then spend hours, if you let them, explaining that the violence is not their fault, and their reactions are perfectly understandable given the evil and violence and unfairness of....whatever. It was terrible that those people flew airplanes into bulidings in New York killing all those innocent people (assuming they admit it and don't say it was a CIA/Jewish plot), and then there will be the "BUT". Suicide bombs against Israeli civilians are terrible BUT..., car bombs in Sri Lanka are terrible BUT..., machinegunning trainloads of Hindus in India is terrible BUT..., and it becomes quite clear that their condemnation, however shallow, is almost perfunctory, and made in recognition that such beliefs will condemn them personally to a western ear which they want sympathy from. It beomes clear that even if they dissapprove of this sort of thing they don't disapprove of it all THAT much, and share most if not all the complaints and demands which give rise to it.

[Leafless]

mar

You wrote- " Your opinions arn't based on anything but a deep seated belief that your positon as a caucasion male is under attack."

My opinions are certaintly deep seated but to imply caucasion male has anything to do with it --forget it.

My concern is aggressive foreigners who come to this country with their politcal baggage thinking they have the smarts to dismantle years of hard work achieved by native Canadians to suit their own personal goals and objectives.

My post simply reflects cultural activities that are undoing the goodness of a civilized, organized Canada transforming this established country seen as a no name country up for grabs under the guise of some kind of republic --a Liberal creation.

The Air India fiasco is the result of an imported cultural war police allege to Operation Blue Star on Sikhdom's holiest shrine triggered this Air India terrorist attack.

http://www.sikhlionz.com/summaryob.htm

Is is disturbing to see someone like you trying to transform legitimate cultural concerns into a White hate movement involving bigotery and racism.

You also wrote: " It is this strain among Conservative supporters and some Conservative MP's and party people that makes most reasonable people suspicous."

Well, I guess with Canada being a democratic free country it boils down to different strokes for different folks for whatever party they choose to support.

Contrary to your belief I am a centrist and there is no way I could support a party like the Liberals who are following a definite communist social path that removes the identity this country was built on.

[mar]

You know, through my work, and because I used to live in an area which was more than half made up of immigrants, I have come to know a number of them, and have discussions with them. Whenever the discussion veers toward radicals they will give a sort of "tut tut" head shake in condemning them - briefly, and then spend hours, if you let them, explaining that the violence is not their fault, and their reactions are perfectly understandable given the evil and violence and unfairness of....whatever. It was terrible that those people flew airplanes into bulidings in New York killing all those innocent people (assuming they admit it and don't say it was a CIA/Jewish plot), and then there will be the "BUT". Suicide bombs against Israeli civilians are terrible BUT..., car bombs in Sri Lanka are terrible BUT..., machinegunning trainloads of Hindus in India is terrible BUT..., and it becomes quite clear that their condemnation, however shallow, is almost perfunctory, and made in recognition that such beliefs will condemn them personally to a western ear which they want sympathy from. It beomes clear that even if they dissapprove of this sort of thing they don't disapprove of it all THAT much, and share most if not all the complaints and demands which give rise to it.

Several problems with this.

First, if you're honest you have to admit that what you are saying is your IMPRESSION is that "even if they dissapprove of this sort of thing they don't disapprove of it all THAT much." That's not fact.

The easy answer is to throw back a lot of the content of this thread - some of which is frankly racist - and then say your condemnation of it doesn't strike me as sincere.

A more considered response is to point out that there is a huge difference between comprehending the root causes of and action and approving of it. I understand that 9-11 was an inevitable result of U.S. policies in the Middle East; of the support of brutal, non-democratic regimes, the U.S. ignoring its supposed commitment to human rights in order to ensure a stable oil supply, even if that meant supporting Hussein, the House of Saud and other dictatorial regimes. Colonial citizens - whether those colonies are officially designated or held by econonic domination, bribery and political intrigue - tend to strike back against the imperial power. There is nothing new or unanticipated about that except that the world is a smaller place now and imperial powers no longer have the ability to confine the inevitable retaliation to far off lands.

That does not mean I approve of the act, it simply means that I understand the conditions that led up to it and continue to exist.

[BubberMiley]

Contrary to your belief I am a centrist...

I find it hilarious that, no matter how wacko people on this post are, they all consider themselves centrists.

[geoffrey]

Contrary to your belief I am a centrist...

I find it hilarious that, no matter how wacko people on this post are, they all consider themselves centrists.

There's wackos on both sides Bubber, maybe it just balances out and becomes centrist?

[Melanie_]

My concern is aggressive foreigners who come to this country with their politcal baggage thinking they have the smarts to dismantle years of hard work achieved by native Canadians to suit their own personal goals and objectives.

My post simply reflects cultural activities that are undoing the goodness of a civilized, organized Canada transforming this established country seen as a no name country up for grabs under the guise of some kind of republic --a Liberal creation.

Leafless, you are imagining all kinds of boogeymen on the streets of Canada, and then generalizing your paranoia to anyone you see who doesn't look like you. Your original post that started this thread was about going to a polling station and seeing people you knew nothing about, noticing that they had a different skin tone than you, and assuming they were in cahoots with every other dark skinned person to take over the country. You can't see that there is inherent racism in that.

I'm not denying that there is crime in our streets, and a disproportionate amount of it is committed by minorities. That doesn't make all minorities responsible for the crimes, any more than you are responsible for the crimes of Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson, just because they were white.

[Argus]

You know, through my work, and because I used to live in an area which was more than half made up of immigrants, I have come to know a number of them, and have discussions with them. Whenever the discussion veers toward radicals they will give a sort of "tut tut" head shake in condemning them - briefly, and then spend hours, if you let them, explaining that the violence is not their fault, and their reactions are perfectly understandable given the evil and violence and unfairness of....whatever. It was terrible that those people flew airplanes into bulidings in New York killing all those innocent people (assuming they admit it and don't say it was a CIA/Jewish plot), and then there will be the "BUT". Suicide bombs against Israeli civilians are terrible BUT..., car bombs in Sri Lanka are terrible BUT..., machinegunning trainloads of Hindus in India is terrible BUT..., and it becomes quite clear that their condemnation, however shallow, is almost perfunctory, and made in recognition that such beliefs will condemn them personally to a western ear which they want sympathy from. It beomes clear that even if they dissapprove of this sort of thing they don't disapprove of it all THAT much, and share most if not all the complaints and demands which give rise to it.

Several problems with this.

First, if you're honest you have to admit that what you are saying is your IMPRESSION is that "even if they dissapprove of this sort of thing they don't disapprove of it all THAT much." That's not fact.

No, but I was speaking to the statement that ethnic/religious groups needed to do a lot more to condemn those members of said groups which perpetuate the "myths" about them. I have not seen all that much condemnation, either publicly, as in the media, or personally, and what I have seen has not struck me as overly sincere.

The easy answer is to throw back a lot of the content of this thread - some of which is frankly racist - and then say your condemnation of it doesn't strike me as sincere.

Why would it, when I haven't condemned anything in this thread?

A more considered response is to point out that there is a huge difference between comprehending the root causes of and action and approving of it.

Unless the "comprehension" of the "root causes" is itself biased by ones ideology, and tends to sound very much as though you actually are excusing it.

I understand that 9-11 was an inevitable result of U.S. policies in the Middle East; of the support of brutal, non-democratic regimes, the U.S. ignoring its supposed commitment to human rights in order to ensure a stable oil supply, even if that meant supporting Hussein, the House of Saud and other dictatorial regimes. Colonial citizens - whether those colonies are officially designated or held by econonic domination, bribery and political intrigue - tend to strike back against the imperial power.

Because, of course, they are angry at their loss of freedoms, right? Oh wait! All Arab regimes are brutal! And none of those doing the "striking back" are angry at the lack of freedoms, so much as angry that there are too many freedoms, and their countries aren't operating under Sharia law. These are not a bunch of freedom-loving colonials throwing tea into the harbor because they don't have proper political representation. These are religious zealots who are murdering innocent people because they want their nations to live under a strict interpretation of the rules in a thousand year old story of a conquering, murdering religious zealot.

If the US supports a regime, perhaps out of self profit, perhaps out of hopes that it can eventually influence that regime (ie, South Korea), it is condemned as imperialist and responsible for all the brutality which ensues. If it opposes a regime, as in Cuba, as in Iraq, as in Iran, it is imperialist, and responsible for all the harm caused by the ensueing economic damage. If it ignores the regime, as in Sudan, it is cruel, bloodless, and uncaring for only minding its own business instead of helping. There really is no way for it to win approval. And so no matter what it does it gets blamed, and people say, "well, you know, they had it coming".

[Leafless]

Melanie

You wrote- " That doesn't make all minorities responsible for their crimes."

Of course not and I never said it did.

I know there are many hard working Canadians part of different cultures and like I said previously I am not a bigot nor racist and have worked with many different cultural minorities.

I think the problems associated with culture have pretty well been covered and I personally could not care less concerning the colour of ones skin like you and a few others have tried to imply with calls of bigotery and racism in a blatant attempt to muzzle free speech rather than properly discuss a controversial politcal area that is driving Canada into the ground.

To give away rights and then take them from another segment of Canadian society is not the definiton of equality.

Equality is a myth --nobody is equal in a capitalistic society and discrimination flows freely in all sectors of society ours or any other society.

[mar]

Because, of course, they are angry at their loss of freedoms, right? Oh wait! All Arab regimes are brutal! And none of those doing the "striking back" are angry at the lack of freedoms, so much as angry that there are too many freedoms, and their countries aren't operating under Sharia law. These are not a bunch of freedom-loving colonials throwing tea into the harbor because they don't have proper political representation. These are religious zealots who are murdering innocent people because they want their nations to live under a strict interpretation of the rules in a thousand year old story of a conquering, murdering religious zealot.

If the US supports a regime, perhaps out of self profit, perhaps out of hopes that it can eventually influence that regime (ie, South Korea), it is condemned as imperialist and responsible for all the brutality which ensues. If it opposes a regime, as in Cuba, as in Iraq, as in Iran, it is imperialist, and responsible for all the harm caused by the ensueing economic damage. If it ignores the regime, as in Sudan, it is cruel, bloodless, and uncaring for only minding its own business instead of helping. There really is no way for it to win approval. And so no matter what it does it gets blamed, and people say, "well, you know, they had it coming".

As to the first, for centuries, perhaps millenia it has been known that when you repress a people with brutal regimes, you create a reaction in type, in fact driving that population towards the more extreme elements among them. Hence, yes, the imperialist power and its puppet governments bear some of the responsibility for radicalizing the resistance.

As to the second, you don't find your defence of U.S. policy somewhat tainted by first the support of Hussein, then the removal of his regime? First the support of Noriega, then his capture? By the support of Bin Laden against the Soviet Union? By the CIA organized murder of Allende leading to the installation of Pinochet? By the death of in excess of 3,000,000 people in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam era?

They should be blamed for those actions and many more and if that all seems like business as usual to you, then there isn't much point.

[Melanie_]

So maybe I'm not clear about what it is about "ethnic Canadians" that causes you so much discomfort that you contemplate giving up your right to vote.

I don't know about you but the polling station I voted in was staffed by a disproportionate number of ethnic Canadians.

In fact I felt uncomfortable to the point I was not sure this was Canada. In fact if this is the type of representation we can expect to receive in the future I might not vote at all.

Did you experience this?

Could it be you assumed they fit into your preconceived ideas about who "ethnic Canadians" are, and what their collective agenda is?

My concern is aggressive foreigners who come to this country with their politcal baggage thinking they have the smarts to dismantle years of hard work achieved by native Canadians to suit their own personal goals and objectives.

My post simply reflects cultural activities that are undoing the goodness of a civilized, organized Canada transforming this established country seen as a no name country up for grabs under the guise of some kind of republic --a Liberal creation.

Could it be you assume that all "ethnic Canadians" are involved in gang activity?

The point of the matter is under the conditions of voting for a prime minister in your country Canada you could or you might feel a certain degree of intimidation or just plain uncomfortable when the staff at the polling station is over represented by ethnic Canadians and you happen to be White especially if you have an ethnic gang type problem in that area.

Could it be you assume they are thinking about you the way you are thinking about them?

I think it is relatively common knowledge that ethnic minorties tend to size you up by simply looking at you if you are pro or against ethnic minorties in simple conservsation.

Could it be you think "ethnic minorities" have no right to advocate for causes they believe in?

And of course this includes politics to further ones cause to obtain as much as possible out of the system as many of them already have

Could it be that you think that applications for volunteering or working in a polling station should be accepted or rejected based on the colour of someone's skin?

All I am basically saying is that the ethnic population of Canada should be represented to federal, provincial public jobs proportionate to their population or there will be problems.

[Argus]

Because, of course, they are angry at their loss of freedoms, right? Oh wait! All Arab regimes are brutal! And none of those doing the "striking back" are angry at the lack of freedoms, so much as angry that there are too many freedoms, and their countries aren't operating under Sharia law. These are not a bunch of freedom-loving colonials throwing tea into the harbor because they don't have proper political representation. These are religious zealots who are murdering innocent people because they want their nations to live under a strict interpretation of the rules in a thousand year old story of a conquering, murdering religious zealot.

If the US supports a regime, perhaps out of self profit, perhaps out of hopes that it can eventually influence that regime (ie, South Korea), it is condemned as imperialist and responsible for all the brutality which ensues. If it opposes a regime, as in Cuba, as in Iraq, as in Iran, it is imperialist, and responsible for all the harm caused by the ensueing economic damage. If it ignores the regime, as in Sudan, it is cruel, bloodless, and uncaring for only minding its own business instead of helping. There really is no way for it to win approval. And so no matter what it does it gets blamed, and people say, "well, you know, they had it coming".

As to the first, for centuries, perhaps millenia it has been known that when you repress a people with brutal regimes, you create a reaction in type, in fact driving that population towards the more extreme elements among them. Hence, yes, the imperialist power and its puppet governments bear some of the responsibility for radicalizing the resistance.

What actions of the "regime" in Saudi Arabia, as an example do you believe outrage its people which would not be continued under the regime they wish to put in place? Moreover, how would life be better for the people if the US were not there? The US "repressed" the people of South Korea, instead of the people of North Korea. Are the North Koreans better off?

As to the second, you don't find your defence of U.S. policy somewhat tainted by first the support of Hussein, then the removal of his regime?

You don't feel their guilt for supporting him is in any way ameliorated by their removal of his regime. In fact, you condemn them for both supporting and removing him. And if they'd done nothing at all you would still condemn them for doing nothing at all.

And that is not a defence of US policy it is a condemnation of hypocrisy on the part of those who condemn US policy.

[Leafless]

Melaine

You wrote- " Could it be assumed they fit into your preconceived ideas about who ethnic Canadians are and what their collective agenda is?"

Not necessarily, but could give that impression and that is why numbers are important in the representation of various cultures by what they represent according to total population. We are talking about jobs concerning federal and provincial employment.

You wrote- " Could it be assumed that all ethnic Candians are involved in gang activity."

No of course not , but your the one that is trying to give that impression.

You wrote- " Could it be you assume they are thinking about you the way the way you are thinking about them."

That question is not applicable as I am the native Canadian and they are the ethnic minority,"

You wrote- " Could it be you think ethnic minorities have no right to advocate for causes they believe in."

If the causes are Canadian oriented I have no problem with that. But for causes pertaining to destabilizing Canadian society for the benefit of establishing a foreign culture -yes, I don't think they have that right.

You wrote- " Could it be that applications for volunteering or working in a polling station should be accepted or rejected based on the colour of someones skin."

This is a question that invites a possible racist answer. Like I said before in a multicultural society numbers from all cultures should be represented by what their percentage is according to what their population is to the total Canadian population in public service jobs federal or provincial as it is not up to government to dictate culture in a public postion as this could be seen as favouring a particular culture. You do be believe in equality don't you?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

In fact, you condemn them for both supporting and removing him. And if they'd done nothing at all you would still condemn them for doing nothing at all.

And that is not a defence of US policy it is a condemnation of hypocrisy on the part of those who condemn US policy.

The condemnation of US foriegn policy is based upon their own hypocrisy. As much as they trumpet 'democracy' (while crushing it elsewhere) and freedom, they only act in their own interest. Supporting Saddam or removing him isn't done for 'justice, liberty or freedom', it is done for economic and power interests (that benefit the US) only. To hear them claim it is 'for the Iraqi people' makes me guffaw.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear leafless,

Like I said before in a multicultural society numbers from all cultures should be represented by what their percentage is according to what their population is to the total Canadian population in public service jobs federal or provincial as it is not up to government to dictate culture in a public postion as this could be seen as favouring a particular culture.

This is very true, and I am vehemently against racial or gender quotas.

With no quotas, the best people would fill the best positions, and over time, it should balance itself out. However, complaining of 'ethnic concentrations', (whatever colour they are) should be the first thing to go.

[Concerned]

My concern is aggressive foreigners who come to this country with their politcal baggage thinking they have the smarts to dismantle years of hard work achieved by native Canadians to suit their own personal goals and objectives.

My post simply reflects cultural activities that are undoing the goodness of a civilized, organized Canada transforming this established country seen as a no name country up for grabs under the guise of some kind of republic --a Liberal creation.

Leafless, you are imagining all kinds of boogeymen on the streets of Canada, and then generalizing your paranoia to anyone you see who doesn't look like you. Your original post that started this thread was about going to a polling station and seeing people you knew nothing about, noticing that they had a different skin tone than you, and assuming they were in cahoots with every other dark skinned person to take over the country. You can't see that there is inherent racism in that.

I'm not denying that there is crime in our streets, and a disproportionate amount of it is committed by minorities. That doesn't make all minorities responsible for the crimes, any more than you are responsible for the crimes of Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson, just because they were white.

I agree with Melanie here.....Mel, do you think that part of the problem is with our immigration system? It is unfortunate for all minorities when a few bad apples give people like Leafless amunition for racist comments. But it's unfortunate that criminals be allowed to enter this country at all, and/or that deportation is not abrupt when new immigrants contribute to crime, gangs etc. I think the problem may lie with an immigration/ court system that allows criminals to stay in the country. Criminals support criminals after all and if we weeded them out from the start, I think there would be far fewer of them around.

What is sad is that so called "native Canadians" (now there's a good one coming from a caucasion male)...can dwell on the few problems we actually have in this country relating to gangs etc. and who do not embrace cultural diversity and its benefits to Canadian society.

[Concerned]

Because, of course, they are angry at their loss of freedoms, right? Oh wait! All Arab regimes are brutal! And none of those doing the "striking back" are angry at the lack of freedoms, so much as angry that there are too many freedoms, and their countries aren't operating under Sharia law. These are not a bunch of freedom-loving colonials throwing tea into the harbor because they don't have proper political representation. These are religious zealots who are murdering innocent people because they want their nations to live under a strict interpretation of the rules in a thousand year old story of a conquering, murdering religious zealot.

If the US supports a regime, perhaps out of self profit, perhaps out of hopes that it can eventually influence that regime (ie, South Korea), it is condemned as imperialist and responsible for all the brutality which ensues. If it opposes a regime, as in Cuba, as in Iraq, as in Iran, it is imperialist, and responsible for all the harm caused by the ensueing economic damage. If it ignores the regime, as in Sudan, it is cruel, bloodless, and uncaring for only minding its own business instead of helping. There really is no way for it to win approval. And so no matter what it does it gets blamed, and people say, "well, you know, they had it coming".

As to the first, for centuries, perhaps millenia it has been known that when you repress a people with brutal regimes, you create a reaction in type, in fact driving that population towards the more extreme elements among them. Hence, yes, the imperialist power and its puppet governments bear some of the responsibility for radicalizing the resistance.

As to the second, you don't find your defence of U.S. policy somewhat tainted by first the support of Hussein, then the removal of his regime? First the support of Noriega, then his capture? By the support of Bin Laden against the Soviet Union? By the CIA organized murder of Allende leading to the installation of Pinochet? By the death of in excess of 3,000,000 people in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam era?

They should be blamed for those actions and many more and if that all seems like business as usual to you, then there isn't much point.

touche

[Melanie_]

I agree with Melanie here.....Mel, do you think that part of the problem is with our immigration system? It is unfortunate for all minorities when a few bad apples give people like Leafless amunition for racist comments. But it's unfortunate that criminals be allowed to enter this country at all, and/or that deportation is not abrupt when new immigrants contribute to crime, gangs etc. I think the problem may lie with an immigration/ court system that allows criminals to stay in the country. Criminals support criminals after all and if we weeded them out from the start, I think there would be far fewer of them around.

Absolutely the immigration system needs to be held accountable; if someone has come here and committed a violent crime, we have no obligation to allow them to stay; nor do we have an obligation to take in someone who poses a credible risk. The justice system also has to bear some responsibility, as often the criminals you are talking about are not immigrants at all, but people born here in Canada, whether to immigrants or not. All the other factors that may be contributing to crime (poverty, inequality of opportunity, bored affluence, adolescent peer cohesion, real or perceived sense of injustice, etc.) don't excuse the crime. What bothers me is the talk about the "ethnic communities" not condemning the criminal actions enough - to do this would be to imply that these crimes are somehow connected to their ethnicity. Criminals are criminals, regardless of the colour of their skin, and should be tried, convicted, locked up, deported, whatever, based on their actions, not their skin colour.