TDot Grit Returns (again)

My month without updates probably lost me the few readers I had, but I'll keep at it anyway.

The NDP never stops amusing me. Their latest: Affirmative Action ridings! I'll keep saying it: just stick to picking good candidates. I myself like seeing more women and minorities in legislatures, but it's not necessary and it's nutty to try and engineer it. A legislature's purpose is to make good policy/law and carry out the wishes of the people it represents. It doesn't have to proportionally represent the gender or racial mix of its constituents.

Barack Obama is my favourite US presidential candidate. Andrew Sullivan has a great piece (subscribers only) on him in the Atlantic.

Those crazy kids in France are rioting again. It started when two kids on a motorcycle (no helmets) collided with a police car and died. I have four problems with this. One: regardless of whether the cops were at fault, how does rioting in response make any sense? These rioters seem to look for excuses to start acting violently. Two: law enforcement was unable to stop the rioting immediately. "Over two nights of violence, they torched scores of cars and rubbish bins, a police station, a nursery school, a library, shops, a car dealer and a McDonald's." This thing should have been shut down as soon as the first car was burnt, but it was allowed to continue. Three: The rioters had the balls to shoot at cops. This should have triggered an overwhelming show of force, but no such thing seems to have happened (I could be wrong, but I've been following this story and have yet to come across anything). Four: Sarkozy, who is supposedly tough on crime, "vowed that anybody who fired at the police would end up in a criminal court, calling it “attempted murder”." Really? That's it? So the other guys who destroyed public and private property won't also end up in criminal court? The police won't defend themselves with their weapons if they're being shot at? What an underwhelming response.

Corporate Taxes, Canadian Content, and Competition

The myth that Canada has really high corporate tax rates is still out there. Take a look at this. The image is from the Economist, who got their data from a report from the C.D. Howe Institute. Our corporate tax rates are lower than that of most Western countries; even the US.

Here's something that irked me when I saw it this morning. It's a Dart from the Toronto Star's "Darts and Laurels" section: "Buffalo Bills - For interference; the NFL team wants to play at least three games in Toronto in coming years, a move that could spell disaster for the Argos and the CFL."

Really? Is the Argos' fan base that fickle and disloyal that they'll abandon their team in droves when an NFL team shows up? And even if this happened, I don't see how it's a bad thing since it's a case of consumers choosing one product over another.

Protectionism exists everywhere, but the cultural protectionism that some Canadians engage in is often baffling. They're so convinced about the inferiority of our own product that they'll do everything to keep competition at bay. We apparently need to keep NFL teams away from our country because Canadians might like them better. We apparently need to keep American TV channels and radio stations away for the same reason. Please. I want my HBO, my MTV (with music videos), and a lot of football fans I know would love it if an NFL team played for Toronto. Let consumers decide. As crazy as it sounds to protectionists, competition might force people on our side of the border to improve the product they put out. And then, maybe more of us would choose Canadian content willingly. Which would you rather have? A strong Canadian product that not only competes but also wins? Or a weak product that constantly needs protection via antiquated laws?

Ontario Election

I have a few thoughts on it, and yes, it's late, but whatever.

There's one theme that really struck me during the campaign (and within politics in general): people with good intentions who don't realize that they're patronizing minorities.

John Tory (apparently) assumed that his school proposal would get him more votes from minorities. Here's how I think about it: We leave other countries and come here for many reasons, one of the main ones being the education system (which has its flaws but is still great, especially compared to what we've left behind). A lot of recent immigrants (and/or minorities) are secular. Like myself, they don't want (more) public funding for religious schooling. You can't assume that a lot of us want this just because a vocal minority (within the minority) is demanding it. When I read about the proposal, I did a double take, but I was even more surprised after learning that Tory somehow thought it would get him votes from people like me.

Note to politicians: Minorities will vote for you if you have good policies. You don't need to target them specifically. It makes some feel special, but most of us feel like we're being singled out and separated from other voters (and thus other Canadians).

MMP was overwhelmingly defeated, as it should have been. One point its proponents constantly made is that we could use it to put more women and minorities in the legislature. I don't know how most women feel about this, but as a brown guy, I was quite offended. I don't care how well intentioned you are, but you're patronizing and insulting me if you're telling me that people who look like me are not capable of being elected under the current system. Apparently a back-door (like MMP) is necessary to get more of us into the legislature. Thanks, but no thanks. If I want to be an elected politician, I'll go about it the normal way. I don't need special policies enacted to make it easier for me; all I need is equal opportunity.

I'm really curious as to what would've happened if Tory had proposed making all of Ontario's schools secular. Just as the Liberals abolished religious arbitration in the legal system, they should abolish funding for Catholic education. Note to D-Mac: If you try and use your new majority to do this, you'll win over a whole lot of minorities like me.

Danny's Peeps

I have a lot to say about the election, but I'll save it. Instead, you should enjoy this very entertaining and informative article by an Economist writer who spent a couple of days in Newfoundland.

Love song for Ahmadinejad

You may have heard that Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently claimed that "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country."

He was speaking at Columbia University.

SNL's Andy Samberg (of Lazy Sunday and D**k in a Box fame) has made a new love song for the president, with an assist from Maroon 5's lead singer. Check it out.

Electoral Reform in Ontario

I'll be voting No to MMP in the referendum to be held ten days. I have several reasons:

1 - There will be two classes of MPPs, one set will be accountable to their electorate (like they all are right now), and one class will only be accountable to the person(s) who appointed them. I don't like that.

2 - More MPPs = More money for their salaries, staff, etc. I really don't like that.

3 - There are many countries where it hasn't worked well and has resulted in legislative gridlock. Supporters tend to name the countries where it works and ignore the rest.

The Star is surprisingly coming out against MMP, and their editorial explains the negative aspects of MMP quite well.

This is not to say that I don't support electoral reform. I personally prefer the Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) system. As always, Wikipedia has an excellent collection of articles on different voting systems.

Race in America

I'm sure everyone has already heard enough about the racial politics in Jena.

As always, the Economist gives us a thorough, balanced, and thoughtful piece.

Photography

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Time magazine has some of the most beautiful and interesting photography on the web. Check these ones out:

Ramadan has begun

The Arctic

Beijing's Changing Skyline

Here we go again

A new "Cartoon Controversy"... in Bangladesh this time.

Is Canada a haven for villains?

The Economist certainly thinks so, and I agree.

Vote for Mowat!

Calgary Grit is has been running an interesting contest for Canada's best premier. The final showdown is upon us, and I urge you to vote Mowat!

Who Was Canada's Best Premier?
Peter Lougheed (2)
Oliver Mowat (12)
See Results

Weekend Update

There are several things I have the urge to blog about, so here goes:

One of my favourite issues, accomodations for religious practices in the public sphere reached new heights after Elections Canada agreed to allow veiled Muslim women to vote without showing their faces. The Cons, Libs, and the Traitors (i.e. the Bloc) have all denounced the move, but the Dippers are ok with it. The article also mentions that there's a simple mechanism to deal with this: women remove their veil in front of a female voting official to identify themselves. I still have a problem with that, since it is sexist. Wouldn't it be hilarious if men started showing up at voting booths wearing this and only agreed to show their faces to other men? How far do these accommodations go?

You know what's really worrying though? Elections Canada doesn't actually require you to present photo ID when you vote. I worked at a polling station during the 2006 elections, and it surprised me quite a bit. Most voters assume that you must present photo ID and bring it, but you can just vote by showing a couple of documents with your name and address on them. Think about it, voting in an election is the basic and fundamental component of a democracy, but I could pretend to be you and you could pretend to be me and no one would be the wiser. I know that not everyone drives, so the solution I support is for every citizen to have an improved citizenship card that uses the same format/technology as the Permanent Resident (PR) cards we have now. The current citizenship cards aren't really that...advanced. They're dinky little pieces of laminated plastic that remind me of my high school student card.

This also reminds me of the great worry that most Canadians now face with the impending requirement for passports to cross the US border by land and sea. I don't get why people don't understand this simple concept: it's another country. My fellow Canadians will spend a lot of time and energy bashing the US and making sure people know that we're not Americans, but when it comes to entering the country somehow we're outraged that we'll have to present the same document that we have to present to enter every other country in the world.

The Ontario Election campaign was quite boring until John Tory went all Stockwell Day on us when he "said religious schools should be allowed to teach creationism if they receive public funding." Nice. I actually liked him as a candidate until he announced his support to fund all faith based schools. Now with this I suspect he's lost a lot people who were on the fence about voting Tory.

Speaking of funding all faith based schools, it either makes sense to fund all of them or none of them. In this sense, Tory's position is actually coherent and principled, whereas McG's (that's a tdotgrit copyrighted nickname there) position (funding for Catholic schools but not for any based on other faiths) is neither. Andrew Coyne sums it up much more eloquently than I ever could, so just read his piece. I myself am against any public funding for faith based education. If Tory's idea is adopted, we'll obviously have funding for Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, and Jewish schools immediately. Just don't complain when my friends and I receive funding for the Pastafarian Collegiate Institute. Just think about it, school uniforms will be pirate costumes, everyone will be required to say "arr" at the end of every sentence, and of course the beer volcano will be a centre-piece in the school cafeteria.

And for something completely non-political, I'm salivating over the new iPods. I was decided on eventually getting an iPhone, but now I'm thinking I'll get the iPod touch and this kickass phone which no one seems to know about. I have high hopes for Openmoko.

Good Reads

Two pieces from the most recent issue of the Walrus. They're just teasers, but worth spending money on:

Magic Kingdom or Glass House - Very informative piece on Dubai, which is a city I'm aching to visit.


Paradise Lost - The story of a Lebanese family caught in last summer's Lebanon/Israel war.

FIFA Incident Followup

I haven't heard much about this lately, until the Star's editorial today. I'm actually quite (pleasantly) surprised at the position they took.

After the diplomatic incident and accusations of police brutality, we're left with this:

"...at least two have now admitted seeing a female police officer punched in the face by a member of the soccer team."

"An investigation by Toronto police revealed Chilean players threw batteries, coat-hangers, and arm and footrests from the team bus at police and that officers were punched, spat upon and kicked in the groin."

The tasers and pepper spray were used in response to these actions.

Anyone still think the police over-reacted?

Toronto's Fiscal Crisis

So we all know this story now. Our mayor tried to get some new taxes passed, failed, and threw a hissy fit threatening to shut down the Sheppard subway line and several TTC bus lines.

Let's review:

1 - Our city council gives themselves hefty pay raises a little while ago, even though we're facing this great budget crisis.

2 - The day after Miller tells us about the great budget crisis, the city "spends $1 million to hire bylaw officers to oversee dogs in off-leash parks."

3 - City councilors not only got a nice raise, but they also have huge expense accounts that they abuse regularly!

4 - And finally, today I read that the number of TTC employees making over $100,000 is now 277!

I know that even if the city corrected a lot of these mistakes, we'd still face a huge budget shortfall. But I think our mayor's approach of complaining + raising taxes is the wrong one. The steps should be taken in this order: A) Get spending under control and do a top to bottom full audit of the city's expenses, B) Pressure the province to upload the costs downloaded by the PCs, and then, only then, consider option C) Raising taxes if we're still short.

I believe that most Torontonians will not stand for a tax hike as long as we continue to see the taxes we already pay wasted so egregiously.

My Healthcare Story

Two weeks ago, I suddenly had shooting pain in both of my arms. Taking Tylenol didn't help, so I headed down to the Emergency Room. The doctor there diagnosed a Repetitive Stress Injury, and sent me home with Advil.

Two days after that, I had some severe swelling and pain in both arms and legs, which led to ER Trip #2. The doctor recommended I keep taking Advil, and see my family doctor during the week.

The next night, I had a new type of pain in both arms and legs, which led to ER Trip #3. After a five hour wait in excruciating pain, I finally saw a doctor, who suspected something viral. He sent me home with some really strong painkillers.

I finally saw my Family Doctor a few days later, and he immediately realized that it is a localized allergic reaction to something, and sent me to a Rheumatologist at Toronto General Hospital (TGH).

When I got to TGH, I was told to wait in line at the ER (this is trip #4), and when I finally saw a doctor, who wasn't a Rheumatologist (even though my Family Doctor specifically requested a Rheumatologist). I was sent home again.

The next day, I saw a Dermatologist, who also suspected an allergic reaction. After hearing my (ridiculous) story, she pulled a few strings and got a Rheumatologist to see me immediately. I finally got some proper medication prescribed, which improved my condition drastically right after the first dose. The doctors still don't know what happened, but at least the medication is working.

This is the first time I've been sick enough to need to go to a hospital, and the experience has utterly shaken my faith in our healthcare system. If you don't think medicare is broken, you're a moron.

I have several points:

1 - It's not that we don't have good doctors, we actually have some great ones. It just took too long for the system to get me to the right person.

2 - My brother and I were discussing that it would've been quite expensive if we'd paid for these ER visits out of pocket (I believe each visit costs over $300). On the other hand, I would have been willing to shell out up to a thousand dollars to see the right doctor right away and get treatment faster.

3 - I understand the Triage system in ERs, but the wait times are still ridiculous. This might have something to do with understaffing, because on Trip #3, the doctor who saw me was the only one working in the ER. To his credit, he stayed an extra hour to wait for my test results and prescribed something that actually relieved my pain.

4 - During ER Trips #2 and #3, I had blood tests done. My family doctor does not have automatic access to those results, he has to call the hospital and have them faxed to him. Even more ridiculous is the fact that I, the patient, will not be given those results! After seeing about 8 doctors within a week, it's painfully obvious how important electronic health records are. Any doctor I see now should be able to access my records, prescriptions, and test results from the past week, but they can't.

An Apology

So my buddy Crescent Canuck pointed out that the comment I attributed to Mayor Miller in the previous post was in fact, from Alfons Rubbens, the publisher of InsideSoccer Magazine.

I apoloize to the mayor (I doubt he either knows or cares, but still), and to the few readers that I do have. It was a misread of the Globe and Mail article on my part, and it was quite boneheaded in hindsight.

Here's the Mayor's actual quote: "The incident is obviously regrettable...The duty inspector who was there last night showed tremendous good sense and defused the incident and sent the players back in the care of their coach. Which was the appropriate conduct. He was a real credit to the (Toronto Police Service)."

Way to go Mr. Mayor. I can't remember the last time I was so pleased with something this guy did.

Miller's last straw

I'm sure everyone has heard of the FIFA soccer incident in Toronto. If not, check out the Globe, Post, and Star.

What really threw me was this quote in the Globe article from our dear Mayor Miller: ""First it was (private) security and then there were more and more police - there were way too many police there. If they would have disappeared there would have been no fracas at all."

Really? So the fans that were attacking the refs would have shown restraint if there were NO police? Is this guy off his rocker? A foreign team stirs up trouble in our city, and his response is to slam our cops?

After the last couple of months, I just can't believe I voted for him, I seriously should've abstained. First the ridiculous taxes, now this. I really need to find a centrist candidate to support for the next mayoral run.

I seriously hope Harper doesn't p***y out under pressure and apologize. Then again, if he did, it would be so Canadian, wouldn't it?

Edited to add strikethrough.

Back at it

So it's been a while and I have several things on my mind...


Religion
I was at a wedding this past weekend and a friend of the groom's family was asked to say a short prayer to bless the wedding. He did that, then went into a diatribe against gay marriage and how countries like the Netherlands and Canada are ruining the world, or something like that. I could easily demolish someone like him in a real debate, but this (not very well educated) man (with really bad grammar) chose my friend's wedding to spout his political views, which made him the world's biggest assshole. And if open minded countries like Canada are really that bad, take a hike buddy.


Environment
I am a bit of an environmentalist myself, and I've noticed two trends recently. The first is disconcerting, the second is annoying.

With all of the focus currently on global warming, are we in danger of ignoring good old fashioned pollution? Whatever happened to all the worry about smog days, clean water, landfills, etc? I'm not knocking the attention that global warming is getting, but let's not forget that there are other environmental issues out there.

With global warming having become the cause du jour, the usual bandwagon jumpers have begun doing things that annoy people like me. You have the retail store customer who'll refuse to take a bag while saying "It'll save a tree." No, you well intentioned moron, it won't. Plastic bags are not made from trees, they're made from oil, natural gas, and coal. Plastic bags are not evil, they are reusable, and recyclable. It's our own city's fault for letting them end up in landfills instead of having found a way to recycle them like other Canadian cities already have.


City Council
Speaking of our city, our gutsy councilors recently decided to put off a vote to burden Torontonians with new taxes. Toronto faces a cash crunch, everyone knows that. Yet the councilors gave themselves and the mayor a raise a few months ago, refused to give up their perks, and are now looking at cutting back on services (wait for it...) that involve non-union jobs! Thus our fun cycle of using taxpayer dollars to give underperforming politicians raises and unionized workers inflated salaries while hitting the taxpayer up for more cash continues.

Reasons why the TTC sucks

As much as I usually love the TTC, there are often those inevitable moments where you'll think "I hate the TTC." I had two of those today. I think I'll make this a regular feature.

Reason #1

I was on the way to work in the morning when the train stops mid-station. Turns out there was a "personal injury" at Spadina station. I really hope it wasn't a subway jumper.

So they announce that there will be shuttle buses between Keele and St. George, without explaining why any station other than spadina wouldn't continue to operate. The train I was on let its passengers off at Ossington, and we waited two hours for a shuttle bus.

The TTC's excellent management skills led to the following problem: The shuttle bus started picking up passengers at Keele, and were always full by the time they got to Ossington, which severely irked the people waiting (including myself). After two hours of waiting, we get news that the subway is running again, and I finally made it to the office.

I realize that the initial "personal injury" situation wasn't the TTC's fault, but the response could have been much better. Explaining why you can't do something goes a long way in satisfying your customers. The TTC didn't explain why every station betweek Keele and St. George had no service even though the incident occurred at Spadina. They cobbled together shuttle buses which were slow, late, and always over capacity. If a passenger has to wait 2 hours when trying to get to work in the morning, your response has failed.

Reason #2

Rude/idiotic drivers. The majority of bus drivers are nice and polite people. But when you run into the idiots, it really irks you to no end. Most TTC users are familiar with the situation where a driver makes a quick stop to hand the wheel to his replacement. This is usually done without a hitch, but my driver and his replacement decide to have a chat today, and we were literally sitting there for about 4 minutes. That's a long time when the bus runs every 10 minutes.

Now that I'm ranting already, let's add a few more reasons. The TTC recently advertised that it can now help people in over 100 languages. Did nobody bother to tell them that it's not their job? And fine, it could be a useful service, especially for new Canadians. But how about buses that run on time, expanded service, clean premises, and courteous employees? Take care of the damned basics before deciding to spend time and money on language services.

Also, the TTC website sucks. It is the ugliest, most useless piece of garbage ever.

Finally, does anyone know why it is that Islington station smells like barf EVERY morning?

The Market at Work

A neat NYT article on the Dabbawalas of India.

Living in a political bubble

I remember speaking to a classmate in my Canadian Politics course after seeing him read the National Post, and saying "ah, you're a conservative." He said he wasn't, but he read it anyway, along with the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star. I found his answer odd at the time, yet I just had the same experience a few days ago when a coworker was surprised to find me reading the National Post, and said he didn't think I was a conservative. I said I wasn't, but I read it anyway.

Until I diversified my political exposure, I was the type of lefty I now criticize. I loved Michael Moore's books and movies, 9/11 conspiracy theories, blaming America for all of the world's ills, and had an illogical suspicions of anything to do with the private sector.

Then I found out that Moore is a hack who fabricates and deceives frequently, and my outlook started to change. A good friend of mine (you know who you are) smashed up some of my leftish economic arguments with cold logic, I started reading the Economist, and I discovered the one great Christopher (Hitchens) the two great Andrews (Sullivan and Coyne).

I wouldn't say I've become a conservative, but I am on the right-wing of the Liberal party, which puts me with the left on (most) social issues and with the right on (most) economic issues.

Allright, time for some politics. There has been some buzz recently about job losses in the manufacturing sector and the selling of Canadian companies to foreign investors.

If you're someone who is against foreign takeovers of Canadian companies, then humour me for a minute. Let's say you own something, like a house. You'd do whatever the hell you want with it as long as it was within the bounds of the law. It's yours. Someone comes along and offers you a great price on it. If you sell, you make a profit. Wouldn't you do it? Would it be fair for someone else to tell you that you can't sell something that you own? It's the same case with these Canadian companies. Their owners (i.e. shareholders) are getting great offers on them, and they will vote on whether or not they will sell their company.

As for the job losses, this one hits close to home because my family has been the victim of layoffs before. But look at things from the company's perspective. The primary purpose of a company's existence is to make money for its owners. Now the company can either can pay Canadian employees a certain amount or foreign labourers half (or even less) than that. Why wouldn't they do it? I know it sucks for the families that lose their incomes and livelyhoods, I've been there. Luckily Canada has (or had if you ask some people) a great safety net. We have Employment Insurance (EI), free training programs, subsidized housing, and in the worst case scenario, welfare. I know that all of these programs have flaws that need fixing, but I think the solution is to strengthen the social safety net instead of trying to tell companies who they can hire.

Corrections and Responses

I just attempted to edit my last post for a couple of corrections, and now the comments that prompted the corrections have disappeared. I'll re-post the comments here (from my email).

g has left a new comment on your post "News Roundup":

This whole paragraph is untrue:

Morales is the Chief at Tyendinaga, not Six Nations. There are no ships either place, and nobody blocked a ship.

Fontaine does not support blockades, but he does support a day of protest and demonstration.

The OPP did not ignore a court injunction, they carried it out April 20 2006. After that, the Court of Appeal overturned the injunction and everything else.

Assertions of aboriginal land rights are a Constitutional issue, not a policing issue, and the legal course of action is negotiations.

The reason for that is that Canada does not have title to the land.

It is Canada that is there illegally.

If you are going to trash people, at least get your facts right. Otherwise, it is libel and you can be sued. I am sending this to Morales.

Posted by g to TDot Grit at May 17, 2007 5:50 AM

I do stand corrected. I misread the article that prompted my post. Robert Morales is the Chief Negotiator for the Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group. He had nothing to do with the blockade, which did occur. The blockade was carried out by six First Nations canoes, not Six Nations as I originally posted. I apologize for the error.

"g" is incorrect in stating that nobody blocked a ship, unless the Vancouver Sun just made the story up. Fontaine can't say that he doesn't support blockades, but a day of protest and demonstration, when some of the protest and demonstration will involve...blockades.

I wasn't talking about the first injunction carried out on April 30, but the one after that. The first injunction was enforced, but native protesters returned and created a new blockade, against which another injunction was issued. The second one was not enforced, and when the Ontario government bought the land from the developer, the second injunction was moot. There are news stories pointing out that the judge who issued it was angry about it not being enforced.

I agree that assertions on land are a constitutional issue, but they do become a policing issue when laws are openly broken by people who create illegal blockades. The constitutional issues will be dealt with by the government and the courts, but the when laws are broken the police need to step in.

Canada's legal/illegal presence is an issue that has yet to be worked out by the courts, neither you nor I are legal experts.

I corrected my inaccuracies. Now since you trashed me, try to get your facts right as well.

Now for the second comment:

Anwar has left a new comment on your post "News Roundup":

The thing is a "few buddies and you" have not been systematically discriminated against for hundreds of years. Even a couple of days ago the Pope himself said the natives of Brazil wanted to be converted, thus ignoring the history of oppression against them.

It is for the same reason black community need special help with crime, and the native community need special help with social projects. Ignoring them isn't going to make the problems go away.

Posted by Anwar to TDot Grit at May 17, 2007 10:50 AM



I agree that the Canadian government has a lot of skeletons in its closet when it comes to its policy towards native Canadians. But you're trying to justify a crime by pointing to past injustices. Two wrongs do not make a right. If blockades are illegal, they should be removed by law enforcement. If they're legal, then anyone should be able to block train tracks. It can't be legal for one racial group and not for the rest. The pope is an idiot who has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about, and I'm not even sure why you're bringing him up.

I'm also not sure why you bring up the black community in this post. But yes, ignoring native complaints will not make them go away. Conversely, breaking the law and disrupting the lives of your fellow Canadians doesn't help your cause either.

News Roundup

Jerry Falwell croaked. For those of you who don't know, he was a major force in the religious right of the American political scene. Many lefties/liberals are cheering his death, mostly because he was a bigot. I look back at his antics fondly. After all, he sued Hustler and lost, only making the magazine and its owner Larry Flynt more famous. He also suggested that 9/11 was god's punishment for feminists, homosexuals and the ACLU. And in my favourite Falwell moment, he wrote that Tinky Winky of the Teletubbbies is a secret homosexal signal because he is purple and carries a handbag. Ok so he might be right about that one.

Six Nations Chief Negotiator Robert Morales has threatened more blockades after blocking a ship. First Nations Assembly chief Phil Fontaine has decided that he will no longer be Mr. Nice Guy. Blocking rail lines, blocking roads, blocking ships, etc. are all illegal. But somehow, law enforcement (you know, the guys who are supposed to enforce the law) sit around and twiddle their thumbs. If a few buddies and I had grabbed a couple of cars and parked them on the train tracks, the police would not hesistate one bit to pull us off (as they shouldn't). But since the perpetrators are native Canadians, they will not do anything. This is one of my biggest disappointments in Canada. Openly race based policing is just disgusting. Let's also remember that the Caledonia occupation continues, with the OPP sitting around and doing...nothing. This is even after a judge ordered the eviction of the occupiers. Let me restate that, an Ontario judge's explicit orders were ignored by the OPP.

On a lighter note, the Tories are now banning foreign strippers from working in Canada. I think I speak for many Canadians when I say that this is an outrage. If you're a strip club customer, it reduces the variety of choices, and if you're a multiculturalist, then it also goes against everything you believe in.

Cyclists vs Drivers

I just watched this video on Youtube.




It was accompanying this article. Students out on an assignment filmed a fight between a driver and a cyclist at Queen and Bay. Apparently the cyclist stopped at a yellow light, which prevented the driver behind him from going through, which set him off. If this is true, then the driver is a jerk and should go to jail for assault.

There was a similar incident back in January at Kensington Market. The driver threw food out of his car window (he was littering). A bike courier who was nearby picked up the food and chucked it back into his car. He then retaliated by throwing coffee on her. She responded by keying his car, which prompted him to get out, kick her bike down, and try to beat her up.

In this particular incident, even though the driver is a dick, I understand why he did it. I hate people who litter, but its just moronic to pick up garbage and throw it into someone's car. The courier started the altercation by doing this. The driver simply responded by throwing his coffee on her. She then keyed his car! After she damaged his vehicle, he damaged hers by kicking it down. Now apparently he also tried to beat her up. This is where he crossed the line, and should have been charged with assault.

Dear bicyclists, there are a lot of aggressive/stupid drivers out there, us regular drivers have to deal with them as well. This doesn't make you angels though. There are way too many bicyclists who disrupt the flow of traffic on purpose and break traffic laws frequently. Other drivers will know what I'm talking about here.

If you want respect from drivers, then obey traffic laws like they do. When I stop at a red light, you should stop right there beside me instead of zooming through. You shouldn't randomly jump in front of a car without making sure that the driver has seen you. I've had way too many close calls with cyclists doing that. There are many other offences, too many to list here. I always have (and will) do my best to accomodate cyclists when I'm driving, but I will stop accomodating you as soon as I see you breaking traffic laws.

A great solution to most of these problems is the proper implementation of bike lanes. We don't have nearly enough of them in Toronto. They benefit both cyclists and drivers by ensuring that cyclists have their own designated space on the road.

One of my biggest pet peeves is cyclists who switch between driving mode and pedestrian mode by using crosswalks to get around. Crosswalks are for pedestrians, roads are for vehicles, got it? If you want to be treated like a vehicle, then act like one. If you want to be like pedestrians and use the crosswalk, then stay off the road and use the sidewalk.

No One is Illegal? Bullshit.

Immigration is an issue that gets me riled up quite easily. I recently came across an organization known as 'No One is Illegal.' Before I start, let's have a bit of a backgrounder.

I am an immigrant turned citizen. My family immigrated to Canada in 1995. It's almost been 12 years, and they have been the 12 best years of my life. I am a proud Canadian citizen.

How did my family get here? Well we applied for immigration, had enough points, and were granted entry. Millions apply each year, only a few hundred thousand are qualified enough.

It was a deal that benefitted both my family and Canada. Canada got a skilled worker (my dad), and two future citizens with high earning potential (myself and my brother). But I think my family got the better end of the deal. We got security, education, healthcare, and most importantly, freedom.

What's the point? Becoming a Canadian resident (and then citizen) is a privilege, and it's for a privileged few. If it were for everyone, then we'd have to throw our borders open and let over half the world's population in. Very few people are foolish enough to suggest that, so let's move on.

I reently received an email about No One is Illegal (NOII) having a rally today to "Stop the Deportations." Let me state this unequivocally: Let the deportations continue. Let's start cracking down on illegal aliens like never before.

There is a huge, huge difference between legal and illegal. Organizations like NOII seek to blur the line, and convince Canadians that they are the same. They are not. They are here illegally. That means against the law. I really shouldn't have to explain that, but it seems people have forgotten the basic meaning of illegal.

If illegal aliens are granted the same rights and privileges as legal immigrants, then what does that say to people who play by the rules? Canada is a society of laws, rules, and structure, or so I thought. Canada told my family to fill out an application and get in line. We did, and now we're here enjoying the benefits of being Canadian. We played by the rules. The people who are here illegally did not play by the rules. They didn't get in line. They and their enablers will try to convince you that it is your moral obligation to give them the same rights and privileges you gave me. You shouldn't.

According to NOII: "Everyday over 500,000 undocumented people across Canada, and over 80,000 in Toronto, live in daily fear of detention and deportation. They are our coworkers, fellow students, political activists, family, friends, and community members. Working in the backs of hotels and restaurants, as domestic and agricultural workers, as taxi drivers and construction workers, and in other jobs, undocumented and immigrant communities experience racial profiling, exploitative working conditions, and lack of access to city services."

I have a few responses to this:

1) They shouldn't have gotten these jobs in the first place. Their employers are supposed to get verify their SIN cards, so we obviously have many employers breaking Canadian law. They need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and the laws governing them need to be tightened.

2) Racial profiling? Bullshit. There are millions of LEGAL immigrants in this country, and they are from every imaginable race.

3) Exploitative working conditions? Meaning that an employer gave you a job at a shitty wage because you couldn't give him a SIN card? That you can't complain to the authorities because you're a criminal?

4) City services? Are you out of your mind?

Canadians are oh so afraid to speak out against illegal aliens for fear of being labelled racist. Well I'm a brown guy and I will not keep my mouth shut. We have a system, and the system has rules. According to these rules, illegal aliens will have an opportnity to make a case as a refugee and be granted refugee status. If that fails, they must be deported.

My family worked damn hard, followed the rules, waited for a long time, and spent a lot of money to get what we have now. Illegal aliens did none of these things, yet they want the same privileges and benefits as me? I don't think so.

Private Clinics

There was an interesting article in the Economist about a month ago. The concept is to make quick visits to the doctor much, much faster than they are now. Rather than wait a week to get an appointment, then another hour at the doctor's office, you swing by one of these 'McClinics' and get a doctor to see you very quickly.

Reasons why I like this service:
-It allows you to quickly see a doctor for minor health problems.
-It is relatively cheap, often charging you half of what a doctors' visit would charge you.
-Many health insurance services are already covering these clinic visits.
-They are becoming widely available, in chain stores (Walmart), pharmacies (CVS), transport hubs (Europe).
-They often use nurse-practitioners instead of doctors. What's the difference? Nurse-practitioners can not only diagnose common minor health problems, but also write prescriptions. That leaves the doctors to deal with the more serious health problems.

It would be nice to see more clinics like this here in Canada, but I need to do more research about why they aren't widely available already.

One of my favourite services in Ontario is Telehealth Ontario. You get to speak to a Registered Nurse (RN) and ask them general health questions, or specific ones to determine if you need to go see a doctor. I've used it on several occasions. I think the Ontario Ministry of Health does a bad job of publicizing the service though, since a lot of people don't even know it exists.

Sponsorship Fun

I came across this just now, and was pleasantly surprised. I'd always wondered about new Canadians coming to Canada through family class sponsorship, then immediately going on welfare. It turns out that the provincial and federal governments will come after the sponsor to recover the money paid out to the new immigrant (through welfare and other such payments). Apparently the sponsor is financially responsible for the new immigrant for 10 years.

I wholeheartedly support this policy, and believe it should be strictly enforced. The premise is simple. You, the sponsor, are bringing a relative into Canada. If the relative has marketable skills, they'll get a job and be self sustaining. If they don't, then you'll have to take care of them, not the taxpayers.

In defense of the Seal Hunt

So the Canadian seal hunt is on, again; lefties and animal lovers are complaining, again; pictures of those cute and cuddly baby seals are being shown on television ,newspapers, and the web, again; and those pictures are triggering shock and empathy, again; which is leading to some nice fundraising for anti sealing groups, again.

Let's examine some of these anti-sealing websites shall we? I've only picked three, there are dozens.

Heading over to www.canadiansealhunt.com we see pictures of white baby seals, sealers using hakapiks, and lots of blood and guts. It asks you to boycott all Canadian seafood, travel to Newfoundland, certain fashion labels, specific seafood companies, and herbs made from seals.

On IFAW's Stop the Seal Hunt site, we also have some of the same pictures and information. This site also claims that the seal hunt is unsustainable, implying that seal populations are declining, while citing their own reports. There's also a very prominent Donate link.

On Boycott Canadian Seafood, we see a prominently displayed baby whitecoat, and more of the same. My favourite words on this site: "Help put an end to the commercial slaughter of baby seals. Make a donation today."

Now, let's examine the facts.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the federal government's ministry, has a seal hunt fact sheet. Hey look at fact #1, hunting whitecoats has been banned since 1987. Could this mean that each and every one of these anti-sealing websites are trying to take advantage of your empathy by showing you the cutest seals and implying that they're the ones being hunted, when in fact they are not hunted? Nah...they couldn't be that blatantly dishonest could they? The fact sheet proceeds to dispel myths about seals being skinned alive (they're not), the hakapik being a cruel instrument (it's not), and that seals are being killed to preserve cod (they're not).

Fact #5 states something very, very, important. The seal hunt is NOT unsustainable as many environmental groups claim. The harp seal population has been growing steadily and is now triple that of the 1970s.

Fact #6: "Seals are a significant source of income for some individual sealers and for thousands of families in Eastern Canada at a time of year when other fishing options are limited at best, in many remote, coastal communities. Sealing also creates employment opportunities for buying and processing plants."

Let's bolster this fact with something from Newfoundland and Labrador's own seal hunt fact sheet: the industry is worth $55 million to the provincial economy, and the money is crucial to eastern Canadians with limited employment opportunities.

I'll bring in my final (and favourite) link, Terry Glavin's article in The Tyee. He is an environmentalist, and is sickened by the disinformation being spread by anti-sealers. If you read nothing else, read that article. It has a lot of good information, and it's too much to repeat here.

Let's move into my opinions.

The anti-sealing movement is full of liars, idiots, and hypocrites.

They're liars because they tell you that the cuter ones are hunted, that it is unsustainable, and that it has no economic value. The unemployment rate in Newfoundland & Labrador is approximately 14%. Canadians that depend on this for a big chunk of their income need the money. It's easy to ask them to do something else, when there are no other jobs available.

They're idiots because their lying and hypocrisy is making the animal rights and environmental movements look bad. I have no problem with this, since I despise most animal rights activists (yeah that's right, I said it).

They're hypocrites because they have a problem with the cruelty in killing seals, but they say nothing about the cruelty in killing cows and chickens in slaughterhouses. I'm looking at economic benefit here. Cattle ranchers and chicken farmers are also responsible for a lot of slaughter. But then you might say, but isn't there a difference between killing cows/chicken to eat them versus killing those cute widdle baby seals? Well it's not just the pelt and oils that are sold, so is the meat! I don't eat it, and maybe you don't, but there are people that do.

I refuse to accept that the welfare of animals is more important than those of people. These morons are audacious enough to (try to) hurt Canada's economy by banning our seafood exports. It hasn't worked, but it still pisses me off.

I'll end this post by requesting that you eat seafood, and lots of it. Don't stop there, beef, pork, chicken, and other meats are oh so tasty. You won't just enjoy a hearty and delicious meal, you'll also piss off animal rights activists, which, for me atleast, is an added bonus.

Toronto's City Council

So the city passed its $7.8 Billion operating budget on Monday. It includes a 3.8% tax hike for single family homes, and a 1.3% tax hike on multi-residential (apartments/condos), business, and industrial properties.

Here's a concise version of the budget process: As usual, our councillors ran out of money, raided the reserves, still didn't have enough money. Then they begged the province for money as usual, the province said no. So now we're suing the province for money.

Then our esteemed councillors sat down and debated the budget, knowing full well that they're already short on cash, decided not to give up on ludicrous perks like free coffee, free TTC passes, and best of all, free golf! They passed a budget without any significant cuts, and now we're sitting around, waiting for provincial money yet again.

All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.

Yes, I know that the Mike Harris team downloaded some programs onto the City, and they will be uploaded again in due time. But what about ludicrous spending everywhere?
-In 2006, we paid city grass cutters $17.45 per hour.
-In 2004, we paid the City Administrative Officer (Shirley Hoy) $282,173, which is more than what the Prime Minister of Canada gets paid.
-The crappy service providers at the TTC have tons of people getting paid over $100,000 per year, including bus drivers! (I'll have a bigger post on the TTC later)

These are only a few examples, there are hundreds more. Why should you care? If you live in a house, you pay more property tax. If you rent an apartment/condo, your rent will go up. If you run a business, your costs will go up as well. All of this to support a budget that is always rubber stamped.

This is YOUR money people (and mine too). Unless you start caring, they'll keep riding the gravy train.

Toronto's Street Furniture

There's been some press over today's announcement that Astral Media won the contract to supply and maintain Toronto's new street furniture for the next 20 years.

Public space advocates are up in arms because of the amount of advertising being allowed on the street furniture. But the deal made ensures that in exchange for the ad space, the firm has to supply and maintain the furniture.

"In all cases, the problem begins with the designs themselves: They are inappropriate, disconcertingly trendy, overdone and overpowering. They would only increase the rampant commercialization of the public realm." That's from Christopher Hume of the Toronto Star.

Spacing (a public space advocacy group that I side with most of the time) is complaining, so is the Toronto Public Space Committee.

I really don't see what all the whining is about. Check out the winning designs from Astral Media. I personally preferred the Clear Channel designs. The third participant was CBS Outdoor.

Recap: Slick new street furniture, for free, for a cash strapped city. Hm.

What Tony Blair said

Blair blames spate of murders on black culture.

Most of us have heard/seen/read reactions to this story, but let us analyze what he actually said. The italics are mine, and the quotes are from the Guardian article linked above. I feel that the Guardian and the rest of the media unfairly spun his comments.

"He said people had to drop their political correctness and recognise that the violence would not be stopped "by pretending it is not young black kids doing it".

I realize this is already inflammatory to some, but what really angered people comes later.

"Giving the Callaghan lecture in Cardiff, the prime minister admitted he had been "lurching into total frankness" in the final weeks of his premiership. He called on black people to lead the fight against knife crime. He said that "the black community - the vast majority of whom in these communities are decent, law abiding people horrified at what is happening - need to be mobilised in denunciation of this gang culture that is killing innocent young black kids"."

So far so good, no? Or has he crossed the line already? He said that gang culture is killing black kids, not black culture. But somehow the Guardian headline spins that as him blaming black culture, when he was actually extra careful to state that the black community is being victimized by gang culture.

"Answering questions later Mr Blair said: "Economic inequality is a factor and we should deal with that, but I don't think it's the thing that is producing the most violent expression of this social alienation. I think that is to do with the fact that particular youngsters are being brought up in a setting that has no rules, no discipline, no proper framework around them.""

This is where he gets into trouble. He states that there are factors beyond economic inequality that explain the violence, and that the way these kids are being raised (i.e. bad parenting) is a big factor. So most people didn't seem to have a problem with his assertion that it's young black kids committing these crimes, the cries of racism arise from his assertion that bad parenting is as important as economic inequality, if not more so.

Can we really disagree with this? Being poor matters, but bad parenting matters too. This is the only way to explain how a lot of very poor kids (from all races) do not turn into criminals. When you control for economic inequality, bad parenting is a major factor leading to future criminal activity.

Now, let's examine the text of his speech and put it in context. Blair was commenting on "the spate of knife and gun murders in London," so these weren't some random off the cuff comments, but with regards to recent criminal activity.

He starts off talking about former Labour Prime Minister Jim Callaghan, moves into investments in the public realm and how there are improvements all across the UK, then in the last quarter of his speech switches gears into how crime affects the public sphere.

"In truth, most young people are perfectly decent and law-abiding, more likely to be victims than perpetrators of crime. Most families are not dysfunctional. Most people, even in the hardest communities, are content to play fairly and by the rules. Most young black boys are not involved in knife and gun gangs."

Hey look how the Guardian piece totally ignores this part of his speech. He then draws a parallel between soccer hooliganism and the current gang problem. He mentions that hooligans are a small segment of soccer fans. Similarly, gang members are a small component of black kids.

"What we are dealing with is not a general social disorder; but specific groups or people who for one reason or another, are deciding not to abide by the same code of conduct as the rest of us. This came home to me when, at the recent summit I held on knife and gun crime, the black Pastor of a London church said bluntly: when are we going to start saying this is a problem amongst a section of the black community and not, for reasons of political correctness, pretend that this is nothing to do with it."

He restates that the problem is amongst a section of the black community, and that it must be directly addressed without worrying about political correctness.

"In the end, football hooliganism was dealt with by a combination of tougher laws, intensive police work, and reducing the possibilities of organised violence. It worked. But it only worked when people stopped pretending it was a problem of football fans. We need to do the same in dealing with these latest manifestations of severe disorder. In respect of knife and gun gangs, the laws need to be significantly toughened. There needs to be an intensive police focus, on these groups. The ring-leaders need to be identified and taken out of circulation; if very young, as some are, put in secure accommodation . The black community - the vast majority of whom in these communities are decent, law-abiding people horrified at what is happening - need to be mobilised in denunciation of this gang culture that is killing innocent young black kids. But we won't stop this by pretending it isn't young black kids doing it."

So he's saying the specific problem has been identified just as it had been with soccer hooliganism, and now it needs to be dealt with.

"In the same way, at the risk of again being misrepresented, as advocating baby ASBOs, or some such nonsense, those families known to the social services, health workers, often the law enforcement agencies, who are dysfunctional and whose children are being brought up in chaos, need to be identified early and put within a proper structured disciplined framework where in return for their state benefits, they get the right mix of pressure and support to change."

Well he already knew his comments would draw fire and be misrepresented. Blair not only identifies the specific problem, but puts forward a specific policy prescription, which may or may not work. The media/public focus on this speech shouuld be that the Prime Minister just addressed a major problem and detailed policies that his government will follow to deal with the problem.

So, to recap: Responding to a huge problem with gang-related violence amongst black youth in London, Tony Blair states that:

a) it's obviously a problem amongst young black youth,

b) most black youth/families are good people and are being victimized by a few criminals,

c) economic inequality cannot by itself account for this violence, parenting (of the criminal youth) has a lot to do with it,

d) the public must do their part, i.e. the black community must rally against this gang culture,

e) the government will follow certain policies to deal with it on their end

There is virtually no discussion at all about the policy, which itself is should be the source of controversy. He's talking about identifying problematic families, and putting conditions on receiving social benefits, hoping that the mix of pressure and support will lead to beavioural change through better parenting.

Again, this is a bold policy prescription and we're not talking about it! This particular problem will never be dealt with if every honest attempt is met with accusations of racism. We always accuse politicians about not having any new ideas, or being too cowardly to suggest tough policies that might work. Here it is folks, so let's debate the merits of the prescribed policy.

Herouxville Follow-up

Allright that was a huge gap between posts, here's hoping posting occurs more frequently from here on out.

So there was some good reaction to the post. I do plan to delve more into the urban/rural divide in the future. It was mentioned that thinking along the lines that immigrants need to be 'accomodated' puts us on a slippery slope towards becoming more like the US/UK, where assimilation is emphasized. This is true to a certain degree, but the Charter itself talks about 'reasonable accomodations' for immigrants. The point of my previous post was to highlight a few instances where I feel we went beyond reasonable. Siyam mentioned that these instances aren't 'earth shattering,' and I agree, but I feel that crossing 'reasonable' barrier puts us on a slippery slope towards losing the core values that makes Canada a Western democracy. The post was more about getting debate started as opposed to sounding a hysterical alarm.

Mezba commented as well: "...small town rural part of the province. As such, they would be a typical hick town, comparable to many in the American south."
This is a completely baseless assertion. Painting a place you know nothing about as a 'hick town' is just as tasteless as the town's declaration painting Muslims in a bad light. If one is to read the Macleans piece I linked to, the town actually WANTS immigrants to settle there. Like myself, they were alarmed by instances where excessive demands from immigrants were met. I'll quote from Macleans: "The five-page document that the Hérouxville town council adopted on Jan. 25, purporting, somewhat naively, to inform immigrants of what to expect if they choose to set up shop in this corner of Quebec's snowy heartland (an occurrence that has yet to happen) has become a worldwide embarrassment." So, they wanted to let immigrants know what to expect if they were to settle in this town. Good intentions, good idea, horribly executed. Some of the points in their declaration are actually very similar to the Canadian Government's "A Newcomer's Introduction to Canada."


One of my biggest pet peeves is the racism accusations that fly whenever someone exhibits anti-muslim sentiments/behaviour. Muslims, above all should know this: Muslims are not a race. They follow a religion. There are white, black, brown, and arab muslims. So please, call them islamophobic, call them anti-islamic, call them whatever, but do NOT call them racists.

One of the biggest problems with any debate concerning immigration is that any criticism of policies that benefit certain groups is always countered with cries of racism. Being an immigrant turned citizen myself, I feel I have more of an opportunity to analyze and criticize topics like this.

More on immigration to follow, but there are many other topics to discuss.

The Herouxville brouhaha

I'm a couple of months late in commenting on this but I was out of the country, so give me a break. The story is just too damn juicy.

First, read the Macleans piece from March 5, 2007. It not only provides a good summary of the Herouxville story but also describes the issue at a pan-Canadian level. Excellent job by Cathy Gulli and Nancy Macdonald.

So the Herouxville town council expects new immigrants to settle in their town in the near future. The purported purpose of the declaration was to let newcomers know what to expect.

I'll post some extracts from the Macleans piece and respond.

"The list of community "standards," which draws on the results of a crude, 20-question opinion poll of 196 area residents, managed to offend practically everyone. Muslims felt they were slurred by advice that the only time you may mask or cover your face in Hérouxville is at Halloween. (Not to mention an express prohibition on stoning, live burning or disfiguring women with acid.) Sikhs saw a slight in the rule that children may not carry any weapons "real or fake, symbolic or not" to school, a clear reference to a high-profile court battle that gave a Montreal boy the right to carry a religious kirpan dagger to school. Jews could find echoes of a recent dust-up between a Hasidic synagogue and a neighbouring YMCA in Outremont in the proclamation that gyms in Hérouxville have windows through which you might glimpse women working out in "appropriate exercise wear." The townsfolk even included a message for born-again Christians: biology is taught in local schools."

I don't see any need for them to mention the stoning, burning, or acid throwing. These are all prohibited by the Canadian Criminal Code and not specific to any particular culture. I can see how this part of the statement could be offensive, but aren't Muslims re-affirming the stereotype by assuming that the declaration talks about them when mentioning stone throwing, burning, and acid throwing?

The face covering issue is one that I agree with. I personally feel that it is a barrier to integration, but it has also been proven to be practically incompatible with western social norms. We all remember the case of the English teaching assistant refusing to remove her veil at work. Let's remember that the incident occurred only after students complained that they couldn't understand what she was saying. You can also make the case for security, especially after there have been several burqa-bandit type robberies in Canada, the US, and the UK.

I absolutely disagreed with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision to allow the carrying of kirpans in school. It gives one religious group more rights than others in a public place. I'm still waiting for someone to carry a regular knife to school and scream religious discrimination when they're told they can't. It's completely retarded to allow weapons in schools, period. Then there was the moron who wanted to carry one onto a train. The Right Honourable Navdeep Bains of Mississauga-Brampton South apparently plans to take this up with the Transport Minister. And oh, he also wears a kirpan in the House of Commons. Seriously, wtf?

And let's not forget the Sikh group challenge against having to wear hardhats (and thus remove their turbans) at construction sites.

The "appropriate exercise wear" comment springs from this case. Once again, religious mores trumped common sense. Why couldn't the synagogue tint its own windows? Why the hell did the YMCA bend over for religion?

And they also threw a barb at Christian creationists by stating that biology is taught in local schools. This one was a tad unnecessary, since I doubt many American creationists will be moving to the "liberal bastion" that is Canada. It was still funny though.

My opinions? The veil/burqa/niqab is a barrier to integration, and a security risk. Not to mention that it looks silly. Yes, I'm aware that burqas and veils are different things, they both look silly. Allowing weapons in schools, trains, and the House of Commons is utterly ridiculous. If you don't like hard hat rules, don't get constructions jobs. If you don't want to see women exercising in workout clothes, don't look through the damn window. Creationism belongs in religious classes, not in biology.

"In Europe, there's a lengthening list of formerly open societies that have chosen to raise the drawbridge. Terrorist attacks in Madrid and London, widespread rioting in France, and the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh have stoked fears that allowing immigrants -- especially Muslims -- to keep their own cultures has created a growing "us and them" divide. France has banned the wearing of the hijab in schools, and the Netherlands is debating whether to go even further, outlawing veils, burkas and head coverings in all public places. (The once-liberal Dutch already boast the toughest immigration rules in Europe, testing the tolerance of would-be newcomers by gauging their reaction to scenes of homosexuals kissing and nude beaches.) Norway now requires citizenship applicants to take 300 hours of language classes. And the U.K. has introduced legislation that will see all non-European workers (including Canadians) start carrying biometric ID cards next year."

I must say, I absolutely love the Dutch tolerance test with gay kissing and nude beach videos. Language testing is already a part of the Canadian immigration process. From my own experiences, I feel mandatory language classes are a good idea.

"But these days, there are troubling signs that the tried and true methods of assimilation may no longer be working. A recent Statistics Canada study concluded that the low-income rate ($26,800 for a family of four) among recent immigrant families is now three times higher than for those born in Canada. Unemployment and underemployment rates remain stubbornly high. The study that has caused the most consternation, however, is a recent paper by University of Toronto sociologist Jeffrey Reitz and economist Rupa Banerjee, which found the children of visible minority immigrants not only feel "less Canadian" than their white counterparts, but report more discrimination than their parents. The place where they encounter most racism? Work. "Thirty-five per cent of visible minorities report some discrimination," says Reitz. "That certainly sounds to me like the system is broken." The conditions for a debate about how we treat newcomers, he adds, and what we expect in return, are certainly falling into place."

I have serious reservations about the UofT paper finding that second generation immigrants feel less Canadian. Then again, I am biased by my personal experiences and those of my friends.

"But support for immigration -- even at Canada's relatively high levels -- has remained robust. We firmly reject the notion that would-be Canadians should have their religious beliefs and values screened before admittance -- 68 per cent according to an Environics poll last fall. And more of us -- 49 per cent -- believe new arrivals should be free to maintain their religious and cultural practices, than be required to "blend in" (40 per cent). In turn, a recent CBC poll of Canada's Muslim community showed more than 80 per cent of respondents said they were broadly satisfied with their lives in this country. Seventy-three per cent were "very proud" to be Canadian; only 17 per cent thought their fellow citizens were hostile to Islam. The most frequent complaint was this country's cold weather."

This is excellent news. Canadians are still embracing immigration, and a majority of Muslims are proud to be Canadian. By the way, can we stop saying Muslim community and Jewish Community? It really is ok to say Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc. It's also ok to call people Black, White, Brown, and Yellow. This is a topic for another day though.

"The Toronto terror arrests and last summer's evacuations from Lebanon have sparked a new debate about what citizens, new and old, owe Canada. And there are many who think we've been a little too flexible, and not quite demanding enough."

Count me among those who feel that we've been a little too flexible.

"Adrienne Clarkson, Canada's former governor general, argues that there is a pressing need to better integrate newcomers into the mainstream. "We used to say that these people will become Canadians in two or three generations, but I don't think we have time for that anymore," says Clarkson, who now heads the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, an organization that promotes civic participation and integration. "It should be accomplished within five to 10 years." If Canada is going to continue to successfully absorb 250,000 people a year, Clarkson says we need more public debate and education about our national values, not less. Simply focusing on enhanced rules, or more flexible accommodation, won't do the trick. New and old Canadians will have to learn to adapt to the changing realities -- everything from head scarves to same-sex marriages -- just as their predecessors did in the past."

Amen sister, amen.

Immigration is good for Canada, both economically and culturally. This country has always prided itself on being multicultural and accomodating to immigrants. My family immigrated here in 1995, and I have never felt unwelcome. However, there are reasons why my family (and many others) chose to move to Canada. This is an open society, where you not only have freedom of religion but also freedom from religion.

Practically, this is how I see it. Let's have churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples and allow people to freely practice their religion (as they do now). There should be conditions placed on this freedom though. The first and most important condition: your religious practices cannot contravene Canadian law. This is generally not disputed, so lets move on to the second most important condition (and my pet peeve).

When you move to a country, it should be your prerogative to adopt to it, not vice versa. Since Canadians are ridiculously kind and polite, some of us have done our best to bend over backwards for religious groups. This has unfortunately led to circumstances where the country has changed (for the worse) to accomodate some of its immigrants.

I moved to a country with an open society where common sense and reason trump faith, not one where religious groups dictate and change social norms. Let us do our best to hold onto the former.

Welcome

This will be yet another blog on Canadian politics. Let's hope I manage to keep updating regularly. First (real) post soon to follow.