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.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, April 23, 2007
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.
"
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.
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.
"
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.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
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.
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.
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.
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.
Monday, April 9, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
