|
|
|
- Thread starter King of Kensington
- Start date
Videodrome
Senior Member
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rona-ambrose-conservative-shadow-cabinet-1.3327895?cmp=rss
Notice how Harper has no role in the opposition other than being a sitting MP. I bet he resigns soon.
Notice how Harper has no role in the opposition other than being a sitting MP. I bet he resigns soon.
GenerationW
Senior Member
You got that right.
nfitz
Superstar
I'm pretty comfortable calling racists, racists.
That's a very small number of people though. If it makes you uncomfortable, feel free to replace "racist" with "religious-based hate crime carried out by members or a predominantly white religion against non-white members of a predominantly non-white religion" ... but that does seem overly politically-correct to me. And rather misses the point of the attacks we are seeing - and in particularly the very white politicians and media who are flaming the "religious-based hate crime carried out by members or a predominantly white religion against non-white members of a predominantly non-white religion."
I agree. It's sad that some are more interested in arguing the semantics than the real problem we have. How is this different than the frequent violent attacks we used to see on gays, when the media and main-stream politicians were still willing to fan the flames of homophobia? The current issues aren't completely a racism issue - but it's hard to ignore that there does appear to be a racist aspect to it.
People often refer to antisemitism as racist. Not seeing much difference here.
In the USA too based on the recent recommendations of some leading political figures.
Last edited:
Skeezix
Senior Member
Scott Reid is the Tory critic for democratic institutions. Has been the Reform, and later Conservative, spokesperson on the electoral reform file for years, not that either of those parties had any real interest in electoral reform. He's always been an advocate of citizen assemblies and referendums, so he will be fighting for any electoral reform proposal to be put to a vote.
Tewder
Senior Member
How do you know what the religious background of anyone is? Were these individuals in question all wearing crucifixes, hair shirts and 'I love Jesus t-shirts'?... and how do you know that everyone acting out against muslims is 'white'? I've heard a few non-white Canadians make some pretty disparaging remarks about muslims and refugees and so on lately.
Be careful calling people anything, and be careful making broad generalizations about people based on lazy assumptions, it's called bigotry.
Again, you're the one slapping labels on everyone... and who's to say we truly have a 'real problem' at all? You'd be the first one to claim that the actions of a minority of nut-bar extremists do not reflect Islam or muslims as a whole, all the while insisting that the actions of a few idiots here do prove that our country and society is racist?? You are being just as reactionary as anyone else.
gabe
Senior Member
nfitz is a guy who called everyone who voted for John Tory, a racist.
picard102
Senior Member
Videodrome
Senior Member
typezed
Active Member
I fully support accepting these refugees. 25,000 a year can be easily absorbed by this country. And all countries have a responsibility to help lessen the burden on Germany and Sweden (and Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan). I don't see the need to rush it for the end of the year. That makes me wish politicians were forbidden from making promises during election campaigns (then we might also have the gas plants in the GTA and wouldn't be dedicating time and money towards planning SmartTrack).
But I'm not so convinced of the assurances that everyone will be thoroughly vetted. What does that mean? Probably that there will be checks for criminal records and known involvement in terrorist groups. There's a lot of grey area before we reach those people. Will we restrict people who have deep religious convictions or tribal belief systems that might be incompatible with modern Canadian society? Probably not, as doing so would be considered discriminatory. We might have conflicting values which make us less than firm when determining who might be a benefit to the country and who might be a drag. When concerns were first raised during the campaign about possible terrorists arriving in the refugee wave, former PM Chretien was doing some appearance. He did his tough guy act and said that person would be put on a plane and be out of here, tout de suite. But in reaction to the Harper government's legislation sending dual citizens back to their other country, Trudeau said that a Canadian is a Canadian. At what point does that status kick in? When they receive citizenship, or when they first acquire residency? No One is Illegal or Sanctuary City activists might believe a Canadian is a Canadian before anyone has sanctioned their presence in this country.
There seem to be plenty of examples of our authorities not being particularly rigorous at the gates. The Khadr family, back and forth from here and Pakistan, supported in their work there at some point by the Canadian government. With Air India, terrorists were being tracked prior to the bombing, a whole plane was reassembled in a warehouse at cost of millions of dollars, and, what?, one person went to jail. One or two of those involved seemed to be able to freely relocate to England. When we hear stories of people being tossed off balconies, we might conclude that not every Somali who has been allowed to settle here is a model citizen. Every so often on the local news there are stories of Roma or South Americans operating some swarming scam or trolling neighbourhoods for vulnerable properties. All these people were permitted entry by our gatekeepers. There will be now young Syrians who will prosper here as only the second generation can, doctors, scientists, business people, artists. But there will be those, no matter how committed their parents are to making a new life here, who achieve less, become disaffected, turn to the fundamentalism of the old country. We can't even select for them. It's an unknown.
Those travelling across Europe are dealing with black marketers, dodging authorities, perhaps destroying identification papers. Maybe given their hardships it is by necessity. But it is an experience of lawlessness people could carry with them after escaping such instability.
People here invest a lot in their idea of peace and security. Seek out the right schools, the safe neighbourhood. Choose insular, economically homogeneous subdivisions, gated communities. Are quick to organise and petition against any incursion of the non-conforming use into those neighbourhoods. Wouldn't consider using public transit, because, you know, poor people. Do all they can to escape the chaos of other people. And they expect their politicians to support those values. Any influx of new people, even when it's the right thing to do, is poking at their bubble. Sure, the right wing exploits people's fears, but when the government, pushing this massive project only two months into stepping into the job, says they have it all under control, security is no worry, we have procedures in place, it seems to me that they're being dismissive, not totally forthcoming on what should be real concerns. Maybe it will be a small percentage of the total who resettle, but some real shits will get through. After Harper mostly shut the door there was a pent-up demand for sponsorships. I would have liked to see the new government work through that first before air-lifting people to be placed in army barracks. Private sponsorships seems the better model for helping people adapt to their new country.
But I'm not so convinced of the assurances that everyone will be thoroughly vetted. What does that mean? Probably that there will be checks for criminal records and known involvement in terrorist groups. There's a lot of grey area before we reach those people. Will we restrict people who have deep religious convictions or tribal belief systems that might be incompatible with modern Canadian society? Probably not, as doing so would be considered discriminatory. We might have conflicting values which make us less than firm when determining who might be a benefit to the country and who might be a drag. When concerns were first raised during the campaign about possible terrorists arriving in the refugee wave, former PM Chretien was doing some appearance. He did his tough guy act and said that person would be put on a plane and be out of here, tout de suite. But in reaction to the Harper government's legislation sending dual citizens back to their other country, Trudeau said that a Canadian is a Canadian. At what point does that status kick in? When they receive citizenship, or when they first acquire residency? No One is Illegal or Sanctuary City activists might believe a Canadian is a Canadian before anyone has sanctioned their presence in this country.
There seem to be plenty of examples of our authorities not being particularly rigorous at the gates. The Khadr family, back and forth from here and Pakistan, supported in their work there at some point by the Canadian government. With Air India, terrorists were being tracked prior to the bombing, a whole plane was reassembled in a warehouse at cost of millions of dollars, and, what?, one person went to jail. One or two of those involved seemed to be able to freely relocate to England. When we hear stories of people being tossed off balconies, we might conclude that not every Somali who has been allowed to settle here is a model citizen. Every so often on the local news there are stories of Roma or South Americans operating some swarming scam or trolling neighbourhoods for vulnerable properties. All these people were permitted entry by our gatekeepers. There will be now young Syrians who will prosper here as only the second generation can, doctors, scientists, business people, artists. But there will be those, no matter how committed their parents are to making a new life here, who achieve less, become disaffected, turn to the fundamentalism of the old country. We can't even select for them. It's an unknown.
Those travelling across Europe are dealing with black marketers, dodging authorities, perhaps destroying identification papers. Maybe given their hardships it is by necessity. But it is an experience of lawlessness people could carry with them after escaping such instability.
People here invest a lot in their idea of peace and security. Seek out the right schools, the safe neighbourhood. Choose insular, economically homogeneous subdivisions, gated communities. Are quick to organise and petition against any incursion of the non-conforming use into those neighbourhoods. Wouldn't consider using public transit, because, you know, poor people. Do all they can to escape the chaos of other people. And they expect their politicians to support those values. Any influx of new people, even when it's the right thing to do, is poking at their bubble. Sure, the right wing exploits people's fears, but when the government, pushing this massive project only two months into stepping into the job, says they have it all under control, security is no worry, we have procedures in place, it seems to me that they're being dismissive, not totally forthcoming on what should be real concerns. Maybe it will be a small percentage of the total who resettle, but some real shits will get through. After Harper mostly shut the door there was a pent-up demand for sponsorships. I would have liked to see the new government work through that first before air-lifting people to be placed in army barracks. Private sponsorships seems the better model for helping people adapt to their new country.
nfitz
Superstar
I don't believe I said that. I said that that those who would vote for a racist KNOWING their racist background are racists. Please don't put words in my mouth.
That's a misrepresentation of what I've said. When challenged on that previously, I've clearly said that I don't think that most people are racist, and that those who vote for racists like Rob Ford out of ignorance are not racist. It's those who knowingly support racists who I've called racist.
We can't however deny that racism isn't a huge problem in our society. With the recent attacks and firebombings, it's becoming increasingly hard to ignore. Some of the media, and some of our right-wing politicians have been fanning the flames of racism. We must eliminate them their positions in society, and not give them the attention that they undeservedly receive (and I'm particularly thinking of many of the US presidential candidates when I write that sentence).
Much of my concern about allowing politicians to run using racism as a wedge factor, is that it would lead to the inevitable justification for racists to actually take action. And that we'd see an uptick in hate-based incidents in our society.
Sadly, I was right. Paris is also a factor, however we saw the uptick in hate-based attacks start in Quebec before the election was even over.
Last edited:
salsa
Senior Member
Pardon us if we're having a bit of a hard time keeping track of all the countless things that have set off your racist/bigot button.
"Toronto elected a racist as mayor in 2010. Anyone who supports him is a racist."
- nfitz
So now that we established the criteria, now we just need to determine if Tory is also a racist.
"I just can't even begin to imagine what goes into one's head when one joins a club that bans Jews. I can only assume that anyone who would join such a club is a racist, and unfit for public office."
"If one supports a bigot, one is a bigot. If one support a racist, one is a racist. John Tory has done both - and on multiple occasions."
So using nfitz logic, Tory is a racist, which means anyone who voted for him is a racist.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Even the founder wasn't white. My church is at least 50% Canadians of Black-Caribbean descent.
Armour
Senior Member
This is how you deal with people like nfitz: https://www.facebook.com/203805062990264/videos/vb.203805062990264/949965438374219/?type=2&theater
Admiral Beez
Superstar
That would've have sounded much better at half speed. Why don't people prep before public speaking?
I think Nfitz and like-thinkers are desperately lacking a term to apply to those they disagree with that has the equal weight of "racist".