The new face of hate

[Posit]

I've seen this over and over and over. The first problem with this is the fact that you're probably non-Christian, so your references to the Bible not only are insulting, but it really has no merit. Why would a Christian accept the rantings of a non-believer, someone doesn't truly understand what's written in the Bible? Stating that homosexuality is a sin is not condemning anyone; ultimately, it's the person who is living in sin who is condemning themself.

I AM a believer in the teachings of Christ. And my beliefs go way beyond the power and control of the Church. In fact it was Jesus belief that the Church was corrupt and yet by calling yourself a Christian you admit your adherence to the Church's doctrines. It was also the teaching of Christ to not accept what one believes as evidence of their place in life.

I AM also a Biblical scholar and have put many of Christ's teaching into effect in my life. So if you are truly of the Christ then show me your works. Where are your miracles? For faith without works is dead.

[Posit]

I think "many" kind of misrepresents things somewhat. Just because something is in the news seemingly all the time, doesn't mean that it is prevelent. In fact, the fact that something recieves widespread coverage means that it is relatively uncommon. And then there is media bias; mainstream media is essentially secular humanist, and just loves to focus on things that go wrong in organized Christianity. Also, broadcast news in Canada is largely under the control of one organization. Feel free to check on who makes up it's board.

I think there is a difference between denominations, so this is something that can't be generalized about, but ultimately, organized Christianity is something of a problem because it has created hierarchies where there shouldn't be, things that are not talked about in the NT. It's good that there are people who choose to devote themselves to studying and teaching Christianity, but it is no guarentee of salvation. True faith comes only from reading the Gospel, not rituals, ceremonies, observing holidays or going to church on Sunday.

If an evil and sinful person teaches that 2 + 2 = 4, is he misguiding anyone?

The problem lies in how the evil and sinful person uses the messages in the Bible. People like Jim Jones, for example.

First of all, 60 million is an incorrect figure. All these things you mention were being developed prior to the war. It's a complicated argument, and one that I think would be wasted trying to elaborate. Essentially, as I see it, the physical world is corrupt and sinful. Good things born of evil are often no better than good things born of good. If evil creates a drug that allows people to live longer, but during that entire time they choose to continue to live in sin, is that a good thing? Evil creates nuclear power, that nuclear power is later used to create electricity so people can live comfortable, materialistic lives, grow fat and lazy and sit in front of a computer and defend sinners all day long on message boards, is that a good thing? And what about the potential problems that nuclear power can cause; is that a good thing? I don't know, you tell me. As far as I'm concerned, why things are is beyond me, and I have no choice but to accept that this is the way things are; I only have a choice in what I do about it, if I allow the world to suck me in, or rise above it and focus on what's truly important in life.

There is no misrepresentation. The Church is corrupt and the only thing it teaches is corruption.

There is no such thing as evil or sin. Your rant has not value of anything but just another of your ignorant rant.

True faith comes only from reading the Gospel, not rituals, ceremonies, observing holidays or going to church on Sunday.

Faith without "works" is dead. If you are a true Christian, then show us all your miracles. Show the works by which you have made your faith manifest.

[Argus]

Must be that small, insignificant number of immigrants in rural areas that is to blame.

Study: A comparison of urban and rural crime rates

"The overall crime rate in small urban areas was 43% higher than in large urban areas, defined as census metropolitan areas, and 58% higher than in rural areas. Rates of total violent crime, total property crime and break-ins were also highest in small urban areas."

More likely you simply don't understand the statistics. First of all the quote above does not speak of rural areas, but large, vs small urban areas. Second, what you are comparing, to an extent, is apples and oranges. Large urban areas consist of a central core, ie, Toronto, surrounded by a great mass of bedroom communities which have high population but little crime. Thus when considered together, the overall crime percentage appears lower do to the population number. The violent crime rate in smaller areas can be distorted in comparison. There are far few people, and so, when a violent crime occurs (which is what everyone cares about) it blooms large on the statistical charts. However, most violent crime in smaller urban or rural areas, esp homicides, are family related, or at least occur between people who know each other. That is not what people fear, it is not what makes people stay home and lock their doors. The homicides and violent attacks in large urban areas are far more likely to be random, or to be related to other crimes, ie, armed robbery, mugging, rape. People don't worry about a guy stabbing his wife. They worry about a junkie shooting them on the street.

Examine the following quote from your cite: The proportion of violent crimes involving a firearm was about two to three times higher in large urban areas

Now why do you think that is? Do you think people are incapable of getting firearms in smaller urban areas? Are there no gun shops? No, the reason firearms are so much more prevalent in crimes in large urban areas is the TYPE of crimes, ie, gang violence, drive-by shootings, armed robberies, etc. To greatly simplify: a violent crime in a small urban or rural area is more likely to be two drunks fighting in a bar or a guy beating his wife. A violent crime in a large urban area is more likely to be a gang killing or a serial rapist.

It is my impression, from reading the news, from watching the news, from my other readings and from my own experience and the experience of those I speak to that virtually all violent street crime in large urban centres is committed by visible minorities.

[Argus]

The terror of hate.

"On May 27, Chanthapanya, a Laotian-Canadian, emerged from the house he had moved into the day before to find racist notes attached to several cars in the laneway.

The tires of the cars had also been slashed.

Chanthapanya, who lives with his mother, sister and wife, said they were living in fear, not knowing who had committed the hateful act."

Now to those who argue against prohibiting hate speech, consider what those notes represent.

Anyone who uses speech to deliberately and maliciously denigrate a group is engaging in formulating terror in their victims via an implicit threat of violence.

I disagree. Furthermore you cannot honestly compare a personal insult combined with violence to some guy on the internet making broad, general statements. If I read in the paper some guy saying "Public servants are all scum and a drain on our resources" - which isn't a helluva lot out of line with some things I've read here, btw, I would simply shrug and ignore it. It's no skin off my nose. On the other hand, if someone throws a brick through my window with the same message - well....

But it's not the speech which concerns me. It's the actions combined with targeting me. There are all sorts of remedies for people slashing tires and vandalizing houses which have nothing to do with hate speech. To put it another way: I do not care what people say so much as what people do.

[jennie]

I disagree. Furthermore you cannot honestly compare a personal insult combined with violence to some guy on the internet making broad, general statements. If I read in the paper some guy saying "Public servants are all scum and a drain on our resources" - which isn't a helluva lot out of line with some things I've read here, btw, I would simply shrug and ignore it. It's no skin off my nose. On the other hand, if someone throws a brick through my window with the same message - well....

But it's not the speech which concerns me. It's the actions combined with targeting me. There are all sorts of remedies for people slashing tires and vandalizing houses which have nothing to do with hate speech. To put it another way: I do not care what people say so much as what people do.

With respect, Argus, you are not the one the hate messages are directed at so how would you know how it feels to have a hate message delivered to your home?

[Argus]

With respect, Argus, you are not the one the hate messages are directed at so how would you know how it feels to have a hate message delivered to your home?

If you actually read what I wrote you would see that I made a distinction between someone saying something on the internet, or in the newspaper for that matter, and someone targeting an individual. We have laws in this country against vandalism, and against threats.

[jefferiah]

I AM a believer in the teachings of Christ. And my beliefs go way beyond the power and control of the Church. In fact it was Jesus belief that the Church was corrupt and yet by calling yourself a Christian you admit your adherence to the Church's doctrines. It was also the teaching of Christ to not accept what one believes as evidence of their place in life.

I AM also a Biblical scholar and have put many of Christ's teaching into effect in my life. So if you are truly of the Christ then show me your works. Where are your miracles? For faith without works is dead.

Well, considering your own argument on the matter Posit. Although I firmly disagree with them You have just nulified your own arguments in favour of making people pay fines or lawsuits for personal insult.

With what measure ye mete..........

[jefferiah]

Wise man once said:

I can understand why Kimmy would want blond children. After all she wouldn't want her kids to be smarter than her.....

IN the end those arguing for protection of the caucas are just superficial egoists. They are more concerned about looks and marinating the pure line than they are about humanity, or genetics. I mean these people are intent on preserving small penis shrimps. I mean real men are descendants of mixed cultures and when the white boys are out trying to polish their whiteness, the rest of us are making babies with their wives.

Of course few pure whites ever get dates unless you want to count pouring beer on their hands trying to get their dates drunk......

The fact is there is nothing special about caucas except the brown ones and the white ones all come from the same place.....

I'm willing to bet these guys were all born with their mothers standing up.

[Argus]

Wise man once said:

Actually, that sounds like something a brainless moron would say.

[jefferiah]

Actually, that sounds like something a brainless moron would say.

Whatever your assessment, his monicker was Posit.

[xul]

I'm afraid that Xul evidences two types of behaviour common among immigrants. The first was discussed earlier in this thread - a low literacy level. The second is a distressing willingness to submit to laws which, to their minds, restrain improper behavior or speech. I have found that immigrants do not share the same respect for freedom of speech in particular, as Canadians do. Immigrants feel that THEIR speech should be free, but whenever they hear someone saying things which really goes against the grain they are outraged and want it stopped. Much like the Left, really.

Such allergic actions are partly caused by insecurity. They feel insecurity because they are minority. Not only immigrants have this problem. How do you comprehend the Quebec separatism? If those French lived in Europe were trying to unit Europe together, they would not be trying to separate from Canada. They want to separate from Canada because their population is far less than those English speaking Canadian, so they have some kind of insecurity, especially in fact there are some Anglo-Saxon supremacists in Canada. If the population in Quebic far more than English speaking area, I guess most Aglo supremacists will become separatists too because they also fear French supremacists.

This is why Mr. Harper or other Canadian political party politicians visited a Hindu temple and prised their "faith". I think they were doing a good job because these actions let minority feeling Canada government and majority treat them as equal. So they will more easily get ride of the minority racism and accommodate into Canada.

Whether some Canadian like "multiculturalism", the fact is Canada was founded by multiculture because there were British, French and native Indian in the early days, then came other European, African and then Asian and now Arabian. Risking of raising race conflicts is not funny to Canada.

According to our historic knowledge, there were no evidence that the pure British blood people would be more loyalty Canada than other minority. In 1770s, It was those French Canadian kept their words of loyalty to British but those 13 British colonies rebeled and, citing an American's words, "kicked British's Kings' ass" for their interests.

A few weeks ago, my cousin's daughter came Beijing for a tour. She came to Canada with her parents when she was 7 and now she is a Canadian Citizen. She can speak Chinese but can not read Chinese words even a map or a bus stop sign. Her boyfriend is a white boy and she told me she used to mix with Canadian born students in college far more than those international student from China because she has different living experience and less common interests with them. The same thing happened in my classmate's childrenhe that he told me about this then he came to China last year.

On my impression, "modern" supremacism is a entirely different thing from old supremacism. In 1770s, those white guys such as George Washington were really white supremacists because they entirely neglected those black slaves were humanbeing too when they rebeled their king by the cause of "everyone are equal". But I'm not condemn them because in that time, white guys really "superior" than other nations, not based on gene but on their scientific knowledge. But today's supremacists or racists, not only white guys but also others have these problem, they are just losers of economic competition. Most of Nazis were not millionaires, the skinheads in Russia are the unemployed guys of market economy and those so-called "supremacists" in Europe and North America are only those victims of globalization. So I don't think the ban of racism can put the end to this kind of "racism" because it is really not racism. But ban of race insulting can prevent other race misunderstanding they are racists and taking revenge of using racism against "racism" and finally raising real racism. This is why I support some kind of ban of racism and supremacism.

Edited October 1, 2007 by xul

[Wilber]

Such allergic actions are partly caused by insecurity. They feel insecurity because they are minority. Not only immigrants have this problem. How do you comprehend the Quebec separatism? If those French lived in Europe were trying to unit Europe together, they would not be trying to separate from Canada. They want to separate from Canada because their population is far less than those English speaking Canadian, so they have some kind of insecurity, especially in fact there are some Anglo-Saxon supremacists in Canada. If the population in Quebic far more than English speaking area, I guess most Aglo supremacists will become separatists too because they also fear French supremacists

I don't know, the EU has countries with populations that range from 800,000 to 83 million.

Otherwise you make some good points but putting restrictions on free speech just makes it harder to figure out who the racists are, it doesn't stop them from being racists.

Edited October 1, 2007 by Wilber

[ScottSA]

Such allergic actions are partly caused by insecurity. They feel insecurity because they are minority. Not only immigrants have this problem. How do you comprehend the Quebec separatism? If those French lived in Europe were trying to unit Europe together, they would not be trying to separate from Canada. They want to separate from Canada because their population is far less than those English speaking Canadian, so they have some kind of insecurity, especially in fact there are some Anglo-Saxon supremacists in Canada. If the population in Quebic far more than English speaking area, I guess most Aglo supremacists will become separatists too because they also fear French supremacists.

This is why Mr. Harper or other Canadian political party politicians visited a Hindu temple and prised their "faith". I think they were doing a good job because these actions let minority feeling Canada government and majority treat them as equal. So they will more easily get ride of the minority racism and accommodate into Canada.

Whether some Canadian like "multiculturalism", the fact is Canada was founded by multiculture because there were British, French and native Indian in the early days, then came African and then Asian and now Arabian. Risking of raising race conflicts is not funny to Canada.

According to our historic knowledge, there were no evidence that the pure British blood people would be more loyalty Canada than other minority. In 1770s, It was those French Canadian kept their words of loyalty to British but those 13 British colonies rebeled and, citing an American's words, "kicked British's Kings' ass" for their interests.

A few weeks ago, my cousin's daughter came Beijing for a tour. She came to Canada with her parents when she was 7 and now she is a Canadian Citizen. She can speak Chinese but can not read Chinese words even a map or a bus stop sign. Her boyfriend is a white boy and she told me she used to mix with Canadian born students in college far more than those international student from China because she has different living experience and less common interests with them. The same thing happened in my classmate's childrenhe that he told me about this then he came to China last year.

On my impression, "modern" supremacism is a entirely different thing from old supremacism. In 1770s, those white guys such as George Washington were really white supremacists because they entirely neglected those black slaves were humanbeing too when they rebeled their king by the cause of "everyone are equal". But I'm not condemn them because in that time, white guys really "superior" than other nations, not based on gene but on their scientific knowledge. But today's supremacists or racists, not only white guys but also others have these problem, they are just losers of economic competition. Most of Nazi were not millionior, the skinheads in Russia are the unemployed guys of market economy and those so-called "supremacists" in Europe and North America are only those victims of globalization. So I don't think the ban of racism can put the end to this kind of "racism" because it is really not racism. But ban of race insulting can prevent othe race misunderstanding they are racist and taking revenge of using racism against "racism" and finally raising real racism. This is why I support some kind of ban of racism and supremacism.

No matter how you rationalize it, you just backed up what Argus said. To most of the literate in the west, the ability to speak freely is of overwhelming importance, and because we have been through all the slippery slopes long ago, we know that "just" modifying it a bit here and there is unacceptable. You on the other hand, as a presumed future immigrant, feel that "feelings" are more important. They're not. Free speech is the fundamental starting point of democracy. It's not some slogan we all like to shout for fun...but you wouldn't understand that.

Speaking personally, I think your attempt to use streetcorner psychology to pigeonhole all anti-immigrant sentiment as some kind of economic failing is not only wrong, but actually laughable. I'm certainly not a "loser" in the economic world, and I don't want more Chinese here. As a writer, I can be fairly certain you're not going to take my job, so that can't be the reason. As a former Calgarian who used to work on the edge of Chinatown, it's not some kind of "phobia," and as a well educated and well travelled individual, you can't chalk it up to "ignorance."

I don't want Chinese here for a number of reasons, not least of which is the problems that will inevitably arise in the event of almost inevitable tensions with China, and the ethnic Balkanization already well under way on the west coast. Our proud multicultural experiment won't last a week if we end up at war with China, and the west coast will likely explode. Worse than that, we may even be hamstrung and unable to go to war even though it's needed.

But frankly I don't need an excuse to not want anymore immigrants here. I want my culture to remain the way it is...as ethnically homogenous as it can possibly be after 4 decades of third world immigration, Eurocentric, Judeo-Christian, and just plain nice. "Tolerance" is a virtue only if it is severely circumscribed...not an end in itself.

[bush_cheney2004]

Moreover, the "old face of hate" remains at home when the immigrants arrive, ironically expecting a big welcome and lasting accommodation. I suspect that a Google search for millions of successful Canadian or American immigrants to China would come up empty. These older cultures have deep rooted "faces of hate", to the point of not even being discussed.

Edited October 1, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[xul]

Otherwise you make some good points but putting restrictions on free speech just makes it harder to figure out who the racists are, it doesn't stop them from being racists.

I think I did not express my opinion clearly. Racism is an idea in some people's mind, so people can not ban an idea in a man's mind. I also agree with you and Jefferinah, people have their right to express idea even if they would be considered wrong by common knowledge.

For instance, there is a white guy thinks every white guys superior than every Negro by gene or an Anglo guy thinks Anglo bloodline superior a Italian bloodline because in scientific and technology fields British is more advantage than Italy now. Perhaps we may consider he was a ricist but I don't think that ban of his speech is a good idea. Argue with him and tell him there are a lot of Aferican American or Canadian who have become Scientists, professors and politicians and early scientists who founded morden science and technology such Galileo they are Italian or Spaish nor British.

But I think law should act against those guys who express their idea by insulting or abusing ways. I think what is the intent of "free speech"? It is not because God fixed a mouth on our face so we must let it speak freely by any way like a monkey. I think it is becacuse any one have the right to express his idea to others or use his idea to affect others. But by which way we can affect others efficiently? Insulting and Abusing can not help them to express their opinion and made others agree with them even if they were correct. Just as thatlaws ban spanking don't mean senators banning us to instruct our kids. Perhaps someone may say spanking is violence. But if a dad change his way from spanking from insulting and abusing his rebellious son for the kids good, do we think his way is correct and serve his purpose efficiently?

Spanking ban surely makes those spanking dads inconvenience temporarily. But it also helps them to try to find an efficient way to teach their kid and finally they will gain greater from this ban.

Edited October 1, 2007 by xul

[jefferiah]

It's not that we think insults are the best way of communicating Xul, it's that we do not trust any goverment power to have power over our speech. Once you call make exception with insulting and abusive speech you open the door for interpretation. What it insulting and offensive speech, how insulting or offensive must it be within reason in order to make a court case, etc. This gets into relativity. And some people in positions of authority have differing views on the relative abusiveness of certain quotes.

Also when you give government the power over speech you grant them the power to abuse hate laws and stretch the boundaries of how insulting something is, in order to silence individuals who make a great case against them. How do you silence reasonable opposition? Dig up something the dissenter has said. An insult, anything bad he has said in his past. (The same way I dug up a statement of Posit's that is undesirable. This was not to destroy his credibility, but to point out that he himself is guilty of the sort of speech he would outlaw, and meanwhile talks about "not punishing others". Even though I never suggested punishing anyone, FYI) And then once the logical dissenter is convicted of hate and labelled a bigot, people will not even pay attention to his logical arguments anymore.....credibility is lost. The government has silenced a person who makes a great case against them.

Pass hate laws and you have opened the door for greater totalitarianism. The funny thing about this, is this is the sort of nonsense the old science fiction writers predicted in their tales of a dark future. They looked toward such censorship and they were horrified by its implications. Not that I am saying science fiction is true to life. But at one time when people read such things they would have thought it a terrible future, but not likely to ever happen. Now when some of these things are actually happening, people are convinced it is terrible to oppose it.

I know your intentions are the best Xul. I understand what you believe, and how you think it would be great if people were less insulting. But I will leave being nice as an option to be chosen freely by the individual, not to be enforced. Even though you mean well by it, I fully believe this is a dangerous road to go down.

Edited October 1, 2007 by jefferiah

[Wilber]

For instance, there is a white guy thinks every white guys superior than every Negro by gene or an Anglo guy thinks Anglo bloodline superior a Italian bloodline because in scientific and technology fields British is more advantage than Italy now.

Anglos and white guys are not the only people in the world with superiority complexes. It's a human condition, not exclusive to any race or culture.

[ScottSA]

Spanking ban surely makes those spanking dads inconvenience temporarily. But it also helps them to try to find an efficient way to teach their kid and finally they will gain greater from this ban.

So speaks the face of a culture with millenia of top down authoritarian government. The only thing that's changed is that Chinese patriarchy has switched from father knows best to government knows best. Our tendency to disbelieve that is another tenet of our civilization you'll probably never understand.

[jennie]

But frankly I don't need an excuse to not want anymore immigrants here. I want my culture to remain the way it is...as ethnically homogenous as it can possibly be after 4 decades of third world immigration, Eurocentric, Judeo-Christian, and just plain nice. "Tolerance" is a virtue only if it is severely circumscribed...not an end in itself.

Tolerance must be severely circumscribed. Now that is an interesting concept. I may agree, but my intolerances may be different from yours. Who gets to decide whose intolerances are allowed and whose are not? Not you or me. That is why we have the laws we have. What if I don't want to be considered part of 'your culture', as you describe us? And Canada "ethnically homogeneous" ... since when? Puleez. The Scots, Brits and Irish are ethnically different, and different from the Ukranians and Hungarians and Czechs and Francophones and Estonians, etc etc. It isn't "ethnically" you mean at all, is it?

[bush_cheney2004]

So speaks the face of a culture with millenia of top down authoritarian government. The only thing that's changed is that Chinese patriarchy has switched from father knows best to government knows best. Our tendency to disbelieve that is another tenet of our civilization you'll probably never understand.

Hey, it gets even better. In addition to the usual "racism", some of these older cultures favor sons over daughters, males over females with...ummm...extreme prejudice. That's too "multicultural" for even Canada.

[kengs333]

Tolerance must be severely circumscribed. Now that is an interesting concept. I may agree, but my intolerances may be different from yours. Who gets to decide whose intolerances are allowed and whose are not? Not you or me. That is why we have the laws we have. What if I don't want to be considered part of 'your culture', as you describe us? And Canada "ethnically homogeneous" ... since when? Puleez. The Scots, Brits and Irish are ethnically different, and different from the Ukranians and Hungarians and Czechs and Francophones and Estonians, etc etc. It isn't "ethnically" you mean at all, is it?

Funny, with you it's always been "whitey" so far; now suddenly there are ethnic groups withing the grand "whitey" race...

You never did explain your contradictory belief in "freedom of religion" and the fact that many women in immigrant groups are in situations that most of us would consider religious oppression.

[xul]

No matter how you rationalize it, you just backed up what Argus said. To most of the literate in the west, the ability to speak freely is of overwhelming importance, and because we have been through all the slippery slopes long ago, we know that "just" modifying it a bit here and there is unacceptable. You on the other hand, as a presumed future immigrant, feel that "feelings" are more important. They're not. Free speech is the fundamental starting point of democracy. It's not some slogan we all like to shout for fun...but you wouldn't understand that.

He said there were an anti-hatred law in Germany before ww2, and Hitler was baned writing by it for several months.

In my dictionary,"free speech" is defined as "The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government." and the concept "opinion" is defined as:"A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof".

"free speech" is a concept, it support "express any opinion" freely, not speak any insult or abuse freely. Anyone can express his opinion by a civilized way if he wants.

But if you think speak freely is a good way, just do it. I have declared that I don't care any literal insulte to me. I just said some people wouldn't think like me. I'm sure you must agree those law did not write by me.

Speaking personally, I think your attempt to use streetcorner psychology to pigeonhole all anti-immigrant sentiment as some kind of economic failing is not only wrong, but actually laughable. I'm certainly not a "loser" in the economic world, and I don't want more Chinese here. As a writer, I can be fairly certain you're not going to take my job, so that can't be the reason. As a former Calgarian who used to work on the edge of Chinatown, it's not some kind of "phobia," and as a well educated and well travelled individual, you can't chalk it up to "ignorance."

You have the right to say you didn't want more Chinese here. And if most of Canadian agreed you, you would ask Canada government to do what you said. You mixd the concept of "supremacists" and "anti-immigrants". Though some supremacists have an aspect of anti-immigrants, but not any person who anti-immigrants are supremacists. If I tryed to immigrate to a very poor village to be a farmer in China, these villager would also be against my action, because their farmland has already been shortage. This don't mean they think they are superior than me.

I have sort of tired someone likes to ask my private things in the debate. Hitler ever wrote a book too, and gained a huge remuneration, I guess. That don't mean he was right. You seemed to define "loser" as "people who are poor or do low paying jobs or do physical jobs". I think you would be wrong. Every occupation has its loser. Just as in sports, playing basketball have its winer and loser, playing football also have its winer and loser. But I didn't say all losers would be ricists. Most of them are not ricists but optimistical people. They learned more from the past and adjusted themslef to fit new circumstance. They may be the winer in the next games.

But some of them did not want change. They just falled into constantly complaining and whining, and acted against something which was not the cause of their failure. This is not a good manner to face the challenge for themself sake.

I don't want Chinese here for a number of reasons, not least of which is the problems that will inevitably arise in the event of almost inevitable tensions with China, and the ethnic Balkanization already well under way on the west coast. Our proud multicultural experiment won't last a week if we end up at war with China, and the west coast will likely explode. Worse than that, we may even be hamstrung and unable to go to war even though it's needed.

I'm wondering what kind of writer you are? A war fiction maker in the internet?

But frankly I don't need an excuse to not want anymore immigrants here. I want my culture to remain the way it is...as ethnically homogenous as it can possibly be after 4 decades of third world immigration, Eurocentric, Judeo-Christian, and just plain nice. "Tolerance" is a virtue only if it is severely circumscribed...not an end in itself.

I agree you have the right to think so and say so. But other Canadian also have the rights to not think so. So your government, the legal representative of Canada, must compromise all the idea of Canadian not only you. And if Canada still allow Chinese to immigrate Canada, I also have the right according Canadian law to apply my application immigrating Canada.

I did not ask you doing something, such as tolerance. I just said I and some Canadian have the virtue of tolerance even facing insult. I am just expressing my opinion, free speech . I have the right even if I'm a foreigner or would-be immigrant.

Edited October 1, 2007 by xul

[xul]

Moreover, the "old face of hate" remains at home when the immigrants arrive, ironically expecting a big welcome and lasting accommodation. .

Did it happen in Canada, or in Iraq?

[xul]

Anglos and white guys are not the only people in the world with superiority complexes. It's a human condition, not exclusive to any race or culture.

I agree. If my instance offended any white guys and Anglos, I say sorry.

But you see, How it is deifcult to a guy being a minority? If a person is a minority, he must very carefull to chose his words to avoid to offend the majority, a large group of people. But if he is a majority, he will very enjoy to speak freely without worry anything because he will not offend the most of people.

Edited October 1, 2007 by xul

[xul]

It's not that we think insults are the best way of communicating Xul, it's that we do not trust any goverment power to have power over our speech. Once you call make exception with insulting and abusive speech you open the door for interpretation. What it insulting and offensive speech, how insulting or offensive must it be within reason in order to make a court case, etc. This gets into relativity. And some people in positions of authority have differing views on the relative abusiveness of certain quotes.

Perhaps you are right. Any perfect law need a judge to practice it. But judges are human, they may make some mistake too.

Edited October 1, 2007 by xul