highly organized disinformation campaign surrounding U.N. conference
- Thread starter earth_as_one
- Start date
It was a totally unCanadian action completely at odds with our much loved and long cultivated national persona. It makes me sick to think these useless pricks speak for me. I will support the mass immigration of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and Iranians and Iraquis and Hatians to Canada.
My God, you're starting to sound like an American (no offense to the Americans here). This is American, that is un-American. American acts and un-American acts, etc.
Un-Canadian to me simply means that it has nothing to do with Canadian territory. Nothing to do with beliefs.
I agree that it was childish to boycott it and that we shoud have attended it, but to start to label this and that as Canadian and un-Canadian, or this as Ontrian and that un-Ontarian, or this as Ottawan and that as un-Ottawan are pure meaningless rhetoric that can mean anything to anbody depending on what they consider to be Canadian, or Ontarian, or Ottawan. Thank God I like maple syrup or I'd be un-Canadian?
Another point. What's this about the national pesona? Racism is a concept that has nothing to do with this or that country specifically. Why are we bringing Canadian nationalism into this? Trust me, there's just as much racism in Canada as there is anywhere else.
You are right inhuman would have been a better choice. I am Canadian though and we do like to think we are humane.
Nationalism must be rekindled and soon or we will be ruled by the New World Order Machjo. It was the principle discussion of the last G20, there is no saving the old order of the west. One currency one government and one armed force, one police, and permanent rule by the corporate elite. I know I sound like a broken record, but I am compelled to think this way by what I understand. Maybe by midsummer we will have reason to change much of what we believe at this time.
Racism is and has often been the basis of nationalism and we do have modern examples of it's application for exactly that purpose, it is a binding force and it is employed widely arround the globe. Racism and organized racism are quite different things though in my opinion.
I would be a citizen of the world some day but not till equality and justice rule.
Nationalism must be rekindled and soon or we will be ruled by the New World Order Machjo. It was the principle discussion of the last G20, there is no saving the old order of the west. One currency one government and one armed force, one police, and permanent rule by the corporate elite. I know I sound like a broken record, but I am compelled to think this way by what I understand. Maybe by midsummer we will have reason to change much of what we believe at this time.
Racism is and has often been the basis of nationalism and we do have modern examples of it's application for exactly that purpose, it is a binding force and it is employed widely arround the globe. Racism and organized racism are quite different things though in my opinion.
I would be a citizen of the world some day but not till equality and justice rule.
Journalist that were there? Some of which had interviewed Ahmadinejad prior to the conference, in which he made reference to the fallacy of the Holocaust. But later dropped from his final speech.
I know you hate thruth, almost as much as you hate the Jews, but you sound like you got some sour grapes there eao.
From th ereports I've read from the likes of the UK's Guardian, all the way down to the Toronto Sun. It seems that most media outlets feel that there was still far to much focus on Israle while all Muslim states seem to be ignored. BUT!!! There was a common theme throughout all of them, including the report from the Vatican's Archbishop in attendance, that the meet had some successes.
So...which part do you have a problem with? The part where those that wanted to see this be about more then just the Jews? Or the fact that most outlets reported the truth and not the one you wanted?
Will you pay for them too...I mean you are an independantly wealthy land holder aren't you? I'm sure you can support and couple hundred on your own...non?
Inhumna as Ahmadinejad, type of inhuman.
You really should be careful how you through your rhetoric around DB, you keep hitting your hero's.
Actually, the immigration issue is one that has pushed me more towards libertarianism. The more of a social security net we have, the more resistance to immigration grows owing the the potential cost. If we were to reduce or dismantle such a system, resistance to immigration might decline, and then we could accept more immigrants, but they'd have to be capable of taking care of themselves.
I'm against immigration quotas, but would very much be for requiring potential immigrants to pass a language test before setting foot on Canadian soil. Let's make it more difficult for peopleto come to Canada, but easier to stay once here. That way, fewer would come, but those who do come wouldn't need to worry about getting kicked out. Right now, it's the reverse.
The cost isn't my issue, the baggage is.
I have no issues with my tax dollars supporting someone honestly trying to gain a better life, no matter the person, colour, faith, what have you.
I do however have a problem with people bring their issues with them from foreign lands, and resurrecting them here.
You would have loved the scene at University & Dundas then today... Tamil Tiger sympathizers handing out their propaganda, again.
So what would be your recommendation on that?
Personally, I'd have no issue with eliminating all immigration quotas, having no numerical limit as to how many immigrants could take in a year, but instead simply requiring them to know English or French at a high level before they can come to Canada. After all, how can they succeed without knowing the local language well?
A near draconian regiment of tests and interviews, to assess whether or not they pose a risk to our social fabric. A life time ban on criminal activity of any kind and the finally, if at anytime, they claim to denounce Canada, they are to be deported post haste.
I wouldn't support that, apart from the language requirement, if a gun was held to my head.
Sorry, I typed that too fast, certainly other requirements too to ensure that they can function. But instead of low requirements and a quota, raise the requirements and scrap the quota. We might see more immigrants come in, but they'd also be equipped to integrate than many of the ones coming in now. I've met Canadian citizens who could speak neither English nor French well! What's the point of a quota if the requirements are still low? Let's replace the quotas with requirments; this reliance on requirements would automatically force us to raise the standards as those would become the main mechanism rather than random quotas for controlling immigration. Quotas just make the government lazy about standards. They figure erroneously that that's what the quotas are for.
I've employed immigrants, met immigrants and partied with immigrants, that did not have what you would call a cursory grasp of the English language, and I would take them over the bulk of what we allow to immigrate here, that can speak English better then I.
Language bothers me not, either.
It's what's in their hearts that matters to me.
iF it's what's in their hearts, that's hard to measure objectively. So waht would you suggest as a fair immigration policy:
quotas: Let so many in evey year, first come first served or some other random selection process.
objective standards: tests they must pass or other measuralbe objective requirements.
Some combination of the above.
But as far as I'm concerned, matters of the heart are difficult to measure in such a bureaucratic system.
Another option is to let anyone in or no one in. So waht would be an appropriate measure?
quotas: Let so many in evey year, first come first served or some other random selection process.
objective standards: tests they must pass or other measuralbe objective requirements.
Some combination of the above.
But as far as I'm concerned, matters of the heart are difficult to measure in such a bureaucratic system.
Another option is to let anyone in or no one in. So waht would be an appropriate measure?