Jump to content

Doom and Gloom forecast for Canada


Recommended Posts

Oh good. I like to play with PC types. Heard the one about the Mexican the Pole and the Jew?

That is generally what I do. Of course, if you consider "supported evidence" to include nothing more than government statistics, even when the government doesn't keep statistics, well, you're going to be disappointed. For example, no level of government has ever made any kind of report or comment related to the street shootings in Toronto. It was left to Macleans magaine, in an interview, to drop the interesting statement that 80% of the people involved were Jamaicans. But generally what people like to say when you mention disproportionate crime from the Black community, is that I have no statistics, no proof. Never mind that face after face in the newspaper is black, never mind personal experience, never mind what everyone KNOWS is true.

Well, stop importing Jamaicans?

But the Hutterites didn't do drive-bys.

It isn't PC to get angry about hatred of Blacks and Jews or any other group. Hatred for no other reason than for what a person is is unacceptable.

Hatred is an emotion. You guys need to learn to take the emotion of out things. I suppose there are people who hate Blacks, but I'm guessing there are very, very few - the kind that joins the KKK maybe. Dissaproval is something else again, or simple bigotry usually based on dissaproval of real or imagined negative traits. You also need to quite imputing evil motives to people when they express a doubt about the viability of this or that group based not on any racial trait but on clearly observable cultural behaviour patterns.

As for statistics, put up the Maclean's link or any other that is up there.

Macleans

I have no idea what the proportion of crime is related to a certain ethnic group. It isn't PC to identify a certain ethnic group that might have a disproportionate amount of crime amongst its people.

Yes but in the US 50% of violent crime is commited by Blacks. They don't keep a record of what percentage is commited by Hispanics, oddly, because they lump them in with Whites. On the other hand, they do record hate crimes commited against Hispanics, so figure that one out. In any event, anyone who lives in a city in central Canada is aware of the disproporionate amount of crime commited by Blacks. The media rarely lets any kind of statistics out except incidentally, as with the Macleans piece, or another piece in the Ottawa Citizen which casually dropped the news that more than half of all those held in custody at Ottawa's juvenile detention facilities were Somalians. Or the Globe piece years ago on Toronto's special drug courts, wherein a reporter sat all day and watched the proceedings, then mentioned that of 40 odd people brought before the court only 3 were White, or the Gazette article on Montreal's homocide squad, casually mentioning the rows of wanted posters on the wall, almost all of them Black.

Nevetheless, though the media doesn't like to mention it, we all KNOW. We know in the relentless simlarity of descriptions in crime reports, and the names on suspects, from the pictures and video of suspects being led into court or arrested, from personal experiences and talking to others with personal experiences.

But thinking on all of that, wanting something done about it, does not make one a racis, becaus it has nothing to do with racial superiorityt. It doesn't even make one a bigot unless one then goes on to look at and treat individual Blacks as potential criminals based on it.

In Canada, First Nations people make up a huge percentage of people locked up in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It's a fact.

And it's a fact backed up by statistics. Because the government feels such statistics can help pinpoint information which will help in aleviating conditions which give rise to this disproportionate criminal behaviour. Then on the other hand, it deliberately does not keep statistics on visible minority crime because, it says, such information could be used by racists to pillory visible minority communities. This is an idiotic argument because the argument only works if one presupposes that certain visible minority groups commit a greatly disproportionate amount of crime. Therefore the government's own argument is evidence that this is the case.

Statistics related to how many Jamaicans come to Canada would be nice. Under what category did they come in? Where did they settle? Is there a legitmate problem happening there? These are all the things I want to know before making a sweeping generalization.

The problem of Jamaicans is multifold. It starts with a culture of violence and drugs, where almost all children are born out of wedlock to single teenage mothers and absentee fathers. It becomes worse in that the main method for immigration from Jamaica involved those single mothers coming alone to be nannies and maids. Years later they brought over their children, who had been rasied by others during that time. Sullen, distant from mothers, brought into a new country, with educations which did not meld well with standards in their new schools, well, unsurprising they began to form gangs.

Hutterites don't defend Canada either. They were exempt from conscription.

Yeah, well, someone had to grow the food anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't want to be the cause of your mind imploding but my Concise Oxford dictionary says racism is only a theory.

Racism- (a) - a BELIEF in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this.

So, unless you can supply absolute proof that the word racism means what it is suppose to mean then you are the one that is being intolerant to others opinions that implicate certain races as being more prone to certain situations.

Racism isn't a theory when it manifests itself in hatred.

For the most part, there is very, very little racism in Canada. The problem is that most people who like the word use it to describe mere prejudice. In that way, the word becomes twisted, distorted, and ultimately meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just don't get it, do you?

The word racism does not really ( or even exist if it didn't characterize a believe) apply unless you believe in the meaning according to your personal belief.

When you say "racism isn't a theory when it manifest itself in hatred" is simply your belief or OPINION, it is not fact.

So you are wrong to be critical or chastisize those who disagree with your belief.

You mentioned antagonistic in early discussions. When you use the word "you" in a discussion as in "you don't get it, do you?", it takes the form of antagonistic rather that a straight forward explanation of what you believe.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the subject of racism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the most part, there is very, very little racism in Canada. The problem is that most people who like the word use it to describe mere prejudice. In that way, the word becomes twisted, distorted, and ultimately meaningless.

In the last few weeks there have been attacks on property of Jewish and Islamic buildings. I think that would come under the category of racism. However, there have also been broadsides in speech and words over the last days regarding both Israelis and Lebanese that crossed lines between mere disagreement over government and military tactics. It was, for lack of a better word, hatred.

In a broader sense, Canada often has had a history with intolerance. A mere prejudice then becomes a hatred and degrades to categorization of people according to colour, religion, gender and the like. Canada likes to think of itself as a tolerant place and it generally is but it can be a cruel place if you are slightly different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem of Jamaicans is multifold. It starts with a culture of violence and drugs, where almost all children are born out of wedlock to single teenage mothers and absentee fathers. It becomes worse in that the main method for immigration from Jamaica involved those single mothers coming alone to be nannies and maids. Years later they brought over their children, who had been rasied by others during that time. Sullen, distant from mothers, brought into a new country, with educations which did not meld well with standards in their new schools, well, unsurprising they began to form gangs.

Argus, normally I agree with you but that goes a bit far. One of the partners in my firm is a black Jamaican female. She is 43, and is raising a very respectable 13 year old daughter. We are a nine-lawyer firm, so she can hardly be a "politically correct token".

We all work arm-in-arm together, sweat bullets for our clients, and make law with reported decisions. Don't you dare racially attack someone I work so closely with because of their nationality and/or color.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hatred is an emotion. You guys need to learn to take the emotion of out things. I suppose there are people who hate Blacks, but I'm guessing there are very, very few - the kind that joins the KKK maybe. Dissaproval is something else again, or simple bigotry usually based on dissaproval of real or imagined negative traits. You also need to quite imputing evil motives to people when they express a doubt about the viability of this or that group based not on any racial trait but on clearly observable cultural behaviour patterns.

Macleans

Yes but in the US 50% of violent crime is commited by Blacks. They don't keep a record of what percentage is commited by Hispanics, oddly, because they lump them in with Whites. On the other hand, they do record hate crimes commited against Hispanics, so figure that one out. In any event, anyone who lives in a city in central Canada is aware of the disproporionate amount of crime commited by Blacks. The media rarely lets any kind of statistics out except incidentally, as with the Macleans piece, or another piece in the Ottawa Citizen which casually dropped the news that more than half of all those held in custody at Ottawa's juvenile detention facilities were Somalians. Or the Globe piece years ago on Toronto's special drug courts, wherein a reporter sat all day and watched the proceedings, then mentioned that of 40 odd people brought before the court only 3 were White, or the Gazette article on Montreal's homocide squad, casually mentioning the rows of wanted posters on the wall, almost all of them Black.

Nevetheless, though the media doesn't like to mention it, we all KNOW. We know in the relentless simlarity of descriptions in crime reports, and the names on suspects, from the pictures and video of suspects being led into court or arrested, from personal experiences and talking to others with personal experiences.

But thinking on all of that, wanting something done about it, does not make one a racis, becaus it has nothing to do with racial superiorityt. It doesn't even make one a bigot unless one then goes on to look at and treat individual Blacks as potential criminals based on it.

And it's a fact backed up by statistics. Because the government feels such statistics can help pinpoint information which will help in aleviating conditions which give rise to this disproportionate criminal behaviour. Then on the other hand, it deliberately does not keep statistics on visible minority crime because, it says, such information could be used by racists to pillory visible minority communities. This is an idiotic argument because the argument only works if one presupposes that certain visible minority groups commit a greatly disproportionate amount of crime. Therefore the government's own argument is evidence that this is the case.

The problem of Jamaicans is multifold. It starts with a culture of violence and drugs, where almost all children are born out of wedlock to single teenage mothers and absentee fathers. It becomes worse in that the main method for immigration from Jamaica involved those single mothers coming alone to be nannies and maids. Years later they brought over their children, who had been rasied by others during that time. Sullen, distant from mothers, brought into a new country, with educations which did not meld well with standards in their new schools, well, unsurprising they began to form gangs.

Yeah, well, someone had to grow the food anyway.

This discussion was an improvement over what we had previously.

I'll try not antagonize you with accusations. But I will challenge things when I see broader statements that require more context. I am open to seeing a point of view when it is presented with thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argus, normally I agree with you but that goes a bit far. One of the partners in my firm is a black Jamaican female. She is 43, and is raising a very respectable 13 year old daughter. We are a nine-lawyer firm, so she can hardly be a "politically correct token".

We all work arm-in-arm together, sweat bullets for our clients, and make law with reported decisions. Don't you dare racially attack someone I work so closely with because of their nationality and/or color.

Not to jump to Argus' defence but I think he was generally in support of the women who immigate from Jamaica doing their best. And the woman in your office sounds like she is doing well by her family. However, even in the Jamaican community in Toronto, there has been questions about where the fathers are in family life. Statistics have shown a disproportionate amount of displacement in their community.

I had heard there was effort by Toronto and Ontario to work alongside the community to help families through this tough period but I have heard nothing lately on the progress of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem of Jamaicans is multifold. It starts with a culture of violence and drugs, where almost all children are born out of wedlock to single teenage mothers and absentee fathers. It becomes worse in that the main method for immigration from Jamaica involved those single mothers coming alone to be nannies and maids. Years later they brought over their children, who had been rasied by others during that time. Sullen, distant from mothers, brought into a new country, with educations which did not meld well with standards in their new schools, well, unsurprising they began to form gangs.

Argus, normally I agree with you but that goes a bit far. One of the partners in my firm is a black Jamaican female. She is 43, and is raising a very respectable 13 year old daughter. We are a nine-lawyer firm, so she can hardly be a "politically correct token".

We all work arm-in-arm together, sweat bullets for our clients, and make law with reported decisions. Don't you dare racially attack someone I work so closely with because of their nationality and/or color.

I thought I had made it clear that I regard emotional arguments as worthy of little more than ridicule.

Now logically, you surely cannot think to yourself that because you know ONE unmarried Jamaican woman who is a LAWYER and whose child is doing well, that this is evidence of anything other than people with good incomes don't usually have kids doing drive-bys.

The problems of Jamaicans with single motherhood, drugs and crimes are extremely well-documented and not disputed by ANYONE I'm aware of. They are discussed openly by the Jamaican community, social and community activists both here and in the US and in Jamaica. Likewise, the history of Jamaican immigration to Canada, particularly in the seventies, is well-documented and understood. The dissasociation between the long-gone mothers and their newly arrived children, often now teenagers, the family breakdowns and isolation, all of that is well-known. Speaking about it, and the resulting crime coming from the Jamaican community is not "racially attacking" people. It is identifying a problem, and you don't get to shut off discussion of that problem because you happen to like a Jamaican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I had made it clear that I regard emotional arguments as worthy of little more than ridicule.

Now logically, you surely cannot think to yourself that because you know ONE unmarried Jamaican woman who is a LAWYER and whose child is doing well, that this is evidence of anything other than people with good incomes don't usually have kids doing drive-bys.

The problems of Jamaicans with single motherhood, drugs and crimes are extremely well-documented and not disputed by ANYONE I'm aware of. They are discussed openly by the Jamaican community, social and community activists both here and in the US and in Jamaica. Likewise, the history of Jamaican immigration to Canada, particularly in the seventies, is well-documented and understood. The dissasociation between the long-gone mothers and their newly arrived children, often now teenagers, the family breakdowns and isolation, all of that is well-known. Speaking about it, and the resulting crime coming from the Jamaican community is not "racially attacking" people. It is identifying a problem, and you don't get to shut off discussion of that problem because you happen to like a Jamaican.

In this case, the father is present. They separated when the child was about two, but he remains a presence.

Sorry to go off on you but I am loyal to my friends, family and workplace. One of the few extreme leftists who can say that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to jump to Argus' defence but I think he was generally in support of the women who immigate from Jamaica doing their best. And the woman in your office sounds like she is doing well by her family. However, even in the Jamaican community in Toronto, there has been questions about where the fathers are in family life. Statistics have shown a disproportionate amount of displacement in their community.

I had heard there was effort by Toronto and Ontario to work alongside the community to help families through this tough period but I have heard nothing lately on the progress of that.

I have read long, intelligent pieces which put together the problems of the Jamaican community here in Canada and trace them very clearly to cultural problems in Jamaica and the lack of fathers there, combined with the distance between mothers and children when the former come here to work and then, years later, bring over their children, who were completely unprepared for life in Canada, hardly knew their mothers any more, and were lost in our cold culture and huge school systems. They inevitably formed gangs, and those gangs grew bigger and meaner over the years. This is exacerbated by a sense of defeatism and inferiority among Jamaican youth, esp boys, which says that education is a waste of time as it will never lead to success anyway, along with a sense of machismo and sexual ownership over girls - the latter of whom are all too sexualized - in part because of the overriding mainstream culture which sexualizes teenage girls - and because Black teenage culture has been made even worse by the devotion to the tenets of "gangsta rap" and the like, wherin girls are "hos" and boys are "gangsta niggers".

And saying "Don't you dare racially attack Jamaicans" is not going to do a gooddamned thing to help.

As far as the crime element goes, in the interview, with former NYPD police chief, now LAPD chief William Bratton, there is the following passage:

B: Tell me, the gang violence that you are experiencing, what is the racial or ethnic background of the gangs?

M: That's a refreshingly blunt question. Some say it may be as high as 80 per cent Jamaican. But no one knows for sure, because people here don't like to talk about that.

B: You need to talk about it. It's all part of the issue. If it's Jamaican gangs that are committing the crimes, well then, go after the Jamaican gangs. And don't be afraid to go after them because they're black. That's the last thing you need to be concerned with.

Bratton, btw, is Black

I could do a similar explanation of the reasons behind the heavily disproportionate crime commited by Somalian young men. It has different origins, but at the same time is somewhat similar. The point is, however, that our immigration system has brought whole communities here without much insight into what wholesale migration would do to those communities, or what would then be the resulting impact on our communities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mentioned antagonistic in early discussions. When you use the word "you" in a discussion as in "you don't get it, do you?", it takes the form of antagonistic rather that a straight forward explanation of what you believe.

When you came back and replied " racism isn't a theory when it manifest itself in hatred" was a contradiction to the dictionary definition of racism as being a theory which I had posted initially.

This I considered 'antagonistic' and replied " You just don't get it, do you?" in ( your correct ) an antagonistic way.

In this instance I would call it an 'eye for an eye' and requires NO apologies, not on MY part anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mentioned antagonistic in early discussions. When you use the word "you" in a discussion as in "you don't get it, do you?", it takes the form of antagonistic rather that a straight forward explanation of what you believe.

When you came back and replied " racism isn't a theory when it manifest itself in hatred" was a contradiction to the dictionary definition of racism as being a theory which I had posted initially.

This I considered 'antagonistic' and replied " You just don't get it, do you?" in ( your correct ) an antagonistic way.

In this instance I would call it an 'eye for an eye' and requires NO apologies, not on MY part anyways.

No apologies needed. There is debate on the subject and it's definitions.

As I said to Argus, I'll try not to use antogonistic language when discussing things with you. We can disagree and that will be fine. When I see your contributions, I might ask questions, ask you to define what you mean but I won't assassinate your character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could do a similar explantion of the reasons behind the heavily disproportionate crime commited by Somalian young men. It has different origins, but at the same time is somewhat similar. The point is, however, that our immigration system has brought whole communities here without much insight into what wholesale migration would do to those communities, or what would then be the resulting impact on our communities.

It seems to me we got a lot of Somalian refugees in when their country disintegrated in the 1990s. I have no idea if there is still a lot coming in even though the situation there is still awful.

As for Jamaican Canadians, I have not heard what the progress has been from last year's meetings when a problem was acknowledged to exist in the community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to be the cause of your mind imploding but my Concise Oxford dictionary says racism is only a theory

Then how is it that people are prosectured for Hate Crimes? Why dont you get a Legal Definition rather than a dictionary reference? Of course the definition says its a theory, its an intangible action or prejudice -

But I must say, tell that to a victim of racism and hatred - no one can be that dumb, you are arguing semantics and it serves no point does it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to be the cause of your mind imploding but my Concise Oxford dictionary says racism is only a theory

Then how is it that people are prosectured for Hate Crimes? Why dont you get a Legal Definition rather than a dictionary reference? Of course the definition says its a theory, its an intangible action or prejudice -

But I must say, tell that to a victim of racism and hatred - no one can be that dumb, you are arguing semantics and it serves no point does it?

I am not arguing semantics.

Don't blame me if you don't know what the difference is between racism and racial discrimination concerning hate crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crime is defined by cultural mores, what is considered a "crime" in one society or country, isnt in another. Who's to say which culture, society, country is "correct"? Correct by who's definition?

They're in Canada. That means anything violating Canadian laws is a crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crime is defined by cultural mores, what is considered a "crime" in one society or country, isnt in another. Who's to say which culture, society, country is "correct"? Correct by who's definition?

The only one which matters in this country is ours. And anyway, cultural mores are not that different. Physically attacking people and stealing their stuff is a crime in all communities that I'm aware of.

It's just that some communities' social order is not in very good shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,770
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Akalupenn
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...