Simply say he was attacked by youths from a "broad strata of society". It works here.

They were Asian victims of Western imperialism.

Wogs in ..
Civility out ...

Very predictable. Humans are hard-wired to not like what is different from them. No surprise here and that is why multi-cultism won't work anywhere it is tried.

How and why to think countries got borders in the first place.

How? through military strength.
Why? To keep the wogs out so sameness could be safe and prosper.

It works well when left alone. Trudeau thought he could improve on human nature. How arrogant is that?

My question is ... why can't we have separate cultures and societies? If we force different peoples to live together under one rule, we will gradually lose the differences we all seemed to find exotic and attractive to visit, study and marvel at.

It will be a dark gray world when we are all under one giant collective. It will be a very dangerous world too. More dangerous than ever before since we will have no borders to protect us from one another.

I liked it better when the fighting was over borders not neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are for neighbors, not factions.

It's a wonder Canon Ainsworth hasn't been charged with 'Inciting'...

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=28805b73-fd9d-467b-98da-3d0772322a0f&k=9195

In my experience, British media usage of "Asian" is almost exclusively made in reference to people of South Asian (Indian Subcontinent) descent.

There goes those Asian youths misinterpreting Budhism again.

GB passes laws protecting every other religion except Christianity and now they are surprised by this incident? Maybe now the so called enlightened of British society might actually give their collective heads a shake...that is of course after they pull them out of the sand!

I conclude they must be A-Hole Asians, an offshoot of the well known Arab-Hole Asians still residing in known unholy holes throughout the worlds desert regions.

What's The Opposite Of "Islamophobia"?

Infidelphobia.

john west - I disagree completely with your opinion.

There is no such thing as 'humans are hard-wired to not like what is different from them'. Nothing; it's your own invalid assumption.

Your term 'wogs' is disgusting. After all, that would refer to YOU, as well, within the perspective of someone living in the next country to yours.

We are all one species, homo sapiens, so, your assumption means that we dislike other species (horses, dogs, cats).

As far as cultural beliefs and behaviour, these are developed by the human community. They aren't 'hard-wired'. They can change. They develop according to the economy which is itself embedded within the ecological realities that population has to deal with.

How did borders emerge? Not from war, but from the realities of the envt'.

A certain population settles in a particular biome, adapts its sustenance technologies to that biome and develops its beliefs and behaviour as adaptations to that economic reality. So- you might have a population that is focused around large herds of animals. Or one that is focused around farming of root crops because the rains are too heavy for cattle and grasses and wheat. This knowledge base defines borders.

The reality of the different ecologies on this planet is what contributes to different cultures, and this will never become irrelevant. Therefore, we can't become 'one identity'.

However, with the current world population, and our modern technology of information networking and industrial production, we can't remain isolate from each other. There will necessarily be a basic common world political system of democracy, a basic economic mode of industrialism. What's wrong with that?

You are also naive if you think that only strangers are the source of violence in a community.

Not very Dhimmi of Canon Ainsworth to complain after the fact.

Doesn't he know his place in society ?

Looks like I'll be the first to say it:

Whither Warren Kinsella? He needs proof that it's not just "white" folks who can possibly be hateful and intolerant.

Time for him to look for hateful Asians in the boys' bathrooms, too. Oh, what the hey... tell him to look for all colors of haters in the bathrooms...

ET,

I think you are wrong. Where I live (West End Vancouver) there are quite a few homosexual folks who have collectively moved there because a more homogeneous community is safer for the collective. They need worry less about gay bashing in their neighbourhood than they did in their previous communities.

There's a reason why many people who immigrate to this country move to areas which are already heavily populated by people from their native lands. It's called comfort and safety. A Bangladeshi is much less likely to be assaulted by another Bangladeshi, which is why Brampton ON has a large diaspora of South Asian Muslims. Same with the Cantonese in Richmond BC and Shanghinese in North Vancouver.

Please don't make me use further examples from, say the former Yugoslavia or The Sudan to make my point.

People (in general) are tribal. Socialists live in socialist neighbourhoods. That's why at a multicultural institute like Queen's University there are still student associations for:
African
Caribbean
American
Jewish
Christian
Evangelical Christian
Muslim
Palestinian
Arab
South American
Portugese
and
First Nations
Students.

I don't care to find an article but if you'd look at Think by Canadian Malcom Gladwell, you'll see that there are tests where Whites have higher blood pressure when looking at Blacks. There were also tests where Blacks had higher blood pressure when looking at Whites.

There is great comfort for some (not me or you apparently) in living in a community of like minded and skinned people.

Also, unless you are a vegetarian, you are slaughtering a species other than your own for your own personal taste in food. So much for your interspecies love fest. There are also interracial love fests... ask the Armenians or Kurds about their experience with Turks.

Futhermore, borders were created in wars. Europe (the origin of the nation state) has its borders defined by areas of military control. France's borders are where they are (and where they have mostly been) because the area is (mostly) easily defensible. The Pyrenees with Spain, the Alps with Switzerland and Italy... the only place that isn't easily defensible is Alsace-Lorraine, the capital of which is Strasbourg (sounds German eh?).

Multiculturalism is a choice, and should not be enforced by the state.

jon - I'll continue to disagree. You and John West are mixing terms. He's talking about 'race' or 'ethnicity', while you, with your homosexual examples, are talking about sociocultural beliefs and behaviour. The two are not comparable.

Certainly, people who share SOCIOCULTURAL values feel more comfortable interacting with each other. That's hardly earth-shaking. So, as an example, you can have an Asian from China, who is an expert in nanobiology, and a Slav from Russia, and a Norwegian and an Iranian Arab and a South African - all experts in nanobiology, and all quite happy to interact with each other.

No, I don't agree with a study that says that 'white's blood pressure rises when looking at pictures of 'blacks'. Such a study has so many variables in it, that aren't dealt with and excluded from the study, that's it's invalid.

i disagree that ORIGINAL borders were created in wars; they were created within natural ecological boundaries. Don't ignore these natural elements. The nation-states merged different biomes, using wars, but this came much later than the original natural ecological boundaries.

The fact that the university has different student associations by all sorts of variables doesn't mean that this is a 'natural expression' of people. It could just as readily be the same isolationist strategy of Trudeau that gave Canada its multicultural ideology - a tactic that effectively balkanized Ontario into a state of disarray and an inability to self-organized itself and its economy.

I don't agree with multiculturalism, which I define as insisting that immigrant groups remain unassimilated and adhering to their 'old country beliefs and behaviour'. I certainly agree with immigration and the collaboration of new immigrants in developing a common culture in the new country.

Much worse happens to Christians in Palestinian territories. But nobody in the West cares much because we equate "Palestinian" with "Muslim", and further think that Muslims have the right to have their own countries but Christians do not.

richard ball - who are you speaking for when you refer to 'we'? You aren't speaking for me.

I don't equate Palestinian with 'Muslim' and I also don't agree that a religion should have 'their own country'.

I prefer the civic nation, with a clear separation of church and state. Religion is, to me, a private not a public affair. However, I think that the civic nation should have ONE set of laws (ie, not a religious set or sets and a civic set); and a common ethical template. This is something that the citizens of that nation have to be developing continuously. After all, as our technology changes, our ways of life change.

Saudi Arabia, for example, has imported the technology of the car. They, of course, haven't developed any technology whatsoever since they reject reason and individual thought. But, they've imported the car; however, they won't let women drive. That will have to change.

ET,

The Balkanization of Ontario is an example of tribalism, which is pervasive worldwide. See Sudan, Yugoslavia, etc.

People isolate themselves.

No, we could never admit to a phobia towards Christians. That would somehow be, uh, un-multicultural. Phobias only exist, naughty, naughty, towards every faith BUT Christianity. In other words, it's more or less open season on Christianity and on those who practise it. "Faith hate"?????? Not even intelligible English.

When I suggested to one of my daughter's teachers, years ago, that perhaps she could explain to her students (grades 5/6) WHAT Christians believe ABOUT Christmas (just the facts) she exclaimed, "I couldn't possibly do that!" When I asked her why not, she said, "Because Canada is a multicultural country."

When I pointed out to her that it was, in fact, Christians who had largely furnished the democratic foundations of Canada, she got all wide-eyed, then said, "Oh! You see 'multiculturalism' as adding onto, not taking away from," as though this was a huge revelation and a very novel thought.

I said, "Yes. That's exactly how I see it."

She didn't tell her students what Christians believe about Christmas.

It gets tiresome. And now Christians are being beaten up. But, in England and in Canada we're not part of the "multicultural" makeup of the country, so, "so what?"

Deeper and deeper down the Rabbit Hole...

Jon,

I agree and what you have said. It is part of my point. Where humans are concerned, "likes attract". That is our nature. ET is something of a politically correct snob and a know-it-all.

I base my assertions on a lifetime of observation. I believe what I see for myself more than what I read in books. What I see is that humanity has a long way to go before it has any hope of global harmony. If we ever reach that point, I suspect we will have morphed into some sort of collective hive. Not what I want for myself at this point in human history.

Perhaps a few hundred years of social programming will change our nature to some extent, but I cannot even agree with my wife on paint color for the kitchen. Again, we have a very long way to go.

I am grateful to have lived in what's left of our Canadian society where we did for a long time have shared values. That is what made us a safe prosperous and trusting society. That's at an end now.

Too many wogs here now. And too many pandering politicians.

And ET, I don't know what you think a WOG is, but I think it is an unassimilated deviant living in an alien culture and not liking it.

Reality can be disgusting I suppose.

I consider Obama's gang a bunch of WOGS. They apparently don't like the culture they are living it and mean to "change" or at least "hope" to.

Hope and Change eh.

john west - because I disagree with you, doesn't mean that you can denigrate my views by name-calling me (politically correct snob and know it all).

I'm certainly not politically correct, and yes, I'll bet I know a lot more than you do. But, I still disagree with you. With your views. I'm not interested in name-calling you.

I base my conclusions on both a lifetime of observations and an indepth knowledge of history and societal organization.

John- is someone who is not assimilated also and always a deviant? Can they be non-assimilated and yet be non-deviant? Can someone who is Chinese be living here, working in the usual local grocery, and yet, be non-deviant? Hmmm?

Can they be living in an alien culture and not liking it because they are viewed with hostility? Could they be wanting to assimilate but being rejected - by people who see them only as Other? As 'wogs'? Hmmm?

After all, at one time, England was made up of local, disparate sets of people, each viewing the other with hostility and fear. They began to merge and develop their common beliefs and behaviour. That's what happens. Different peoples come into contact with each other, and if allowed to interact rather than isolated within multiculturalism - they collaborate to develop a shared set of common values.

You reject their even attempting such actions. That's you.

The term "Asian" in the UK historically refers to South Asians from the Indian subcontinent. Statistically, it is more likely than not that the individuals in question were not Muslim.

A priest or minister should not have any special protection that I as a regular citizen do not get; I should have every right to tell kids to get off my lawn and expect the same level of protection from the state regardless of my ethnicity or religion. I refer you to the following:

"There are also numerous attacks against Jews but, according to police statistics, relatively few Christians are attacked because of their faith."

And that is because when a Jew or Muslim or homosexual is attacked they get special protection from the state and Christians do not.

ET,

You have drawn erroneous conclusions ... again.

Unassimilated deviants are just what I said. An assimilated immigrant ceases to be unassimilated. If they are or were of the deviant variety such as many Muslims in Canada are, then they would continue to be unassimilated deviants... wogs.

If they are unassimilated but want to assimilate then they are not of the deviant variety in the first place and would not be in the wog classification.

Are these the kind of word games you enjoy? Should I have to explain every syllable to you? If so, then that tells me you do not understand plain English or at least don't want to understand my use of it.

Like most Canadians I don't like people who come here and reject out traditions and values. It is very difficult for most new comers to assimilate into Canadian culture because we have what I mentioned to many pandering politicians who encourage them in every way to not assimilate. NO matter how much they come into contact with 'others' they will remain outsiders with a chip.

I don't like those politicians either and as far as I am concerned they are in the wog family as well.

I consider Obama and his followers to be wogs for all the reasons I have explained to you.

Why do you need so much explanation anyway, you are soooo smart you should be able to understand what I say in first place.

ET said:There is no such thing as 'humans are hard-wired to not like what is different from them'. Nothing; it's your own invalid assumption."

ET, you'd be wrong about that. I do wish you'd leave the biology to the biologists. What cultural/societal/economic influences do is teach humans to suppress biological overrides. humans, like every other mammal and most other vertebrates, marches to a shared script that is different only to the extent of its variability.

The use of "Asian" is imflammatory. There are plenty of Asians, for example, oh, let's say Hindus, Chinese, Burmese, Laos, Russians, Mongols, Seikhs, Thais, who do not go around beating up Christians. Much better to accurately identify the perps to avoid the tar-brushing of the innocent.

So, was it "Muslims" who did the job?

Followers of Tim Blair will immediately recognize the work of Presbitarians

Skip,

I'm not a biologist but my experience as an "other" in a racially and culturally homogeneous society (Thailand) has taught me that people fear change and those that are different.

I've read somewhere (I know poor quality arguing but still) that people act in this tribal way as a developmental way of protecting one's community. If everyone in the region (Danube Valley) looks like a Slav and some people who look Turkish show up, they could have assumed that those people were outsiders looking for territory or food or women.

It would be nice if people saw beyond physical features to determine the value of a person, but in my experience they don't.

Posted by: fdsafdasf @ 5:43 p.m.:

“A priest or minister should not have any special protection that I as a regular citizen do not get; I should have every right to tell kids to get off my lawn and expect the same level of protection from the state regardless of my ethnicity or religion.”

I totally agree. The so-called “hate crime” sections of the Criminal Code are political in nature—people like Svend Robinson, homosexual and activist, was a great proponent—and the “hate crime” sections are being used to confer special status on certain groups, about which it has become almost impossible to even SAY anything negative—without fear of being hauled before an HRC or worse.

Assault is assault and should be dealt with as a crime. Allowing motive, connected to the idea of “hate”—a feeling—has meant, in fact, that certain groups are “more equal” than others.

E.g., The HRC case against the Rev. Boisson of Red Deer, Alberta apparently used the fact that a gay youth was attacked a few weeks after the minister’s letter to a newspaper, seriously impugning the gay agenda. The letter was less temperate than one might feel comfortable with, but, to make a direct causal link between the letter and the attack, which is, I believe, what the HRC did, is what the “hate crimes” leverage is all about: conferring power on certain, “disadvantaged” groups—who aren’t so disadvantaged anymore—over others. The state’s willingness here to use a partisan bludgeon, to silence and/or punish politically incorrect dissenters, is another Canadian scandal.

When one considers our political and judicial culture—the brain(dead)child of the Liberals—anyone who thinks Canada is a “nice” place is sadly mistaken.

I believe that "Asian" is generally used in the UK as a euphanism for Pakistani.

Hell has frozen over. AKA, I agree with ET on this one.

Kate, Asian refers to South Asians - Indians Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. In fact, the Pakistanis often complain that the term asian has been monopolized by Hindu Indians. Asian programming on TV such as BBC Asian is generally Indian-based etc. The euphemism - I assume thats what you mean by euphanism - is Paki. Its also a racial slur.

Heres a classic myth:

"A Bangladeshi is much less likely to be assaulted by another Bangladeshi"

Ethnic on ethnic crime in Canada is a pretty well known, even common phenomenon. Viets, Tamils, even the Sikh refugees - they all are more violent towards their community members than they are to white people. In fact I dont think either of those three groups has clashed with white groups.

"People (in general) are tribal. Socialists live in socialist neighbourhoods. That's why at a multicultural institute like Queen's University there are still groups for...."

Poor people live in poor neighborhoods. Rich people live in rich neighborhoods. Regardless of their creed, race etc. The 'Asian' steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal lives in one of Londons most expensive areas. etc. etc.

Student groups are essentially support groups for foreign students that also promote their own culture through events. In most cases they are simply creative outlets. Most of the groups you name do nothing more than organize parties, shows and events. And why not? Is Queens worse off for having an Armenian group that brings attention to the Turkish genoicide? A Bangladeshi group that invites people to try Bangladeshi cuisine? An African group that holds a fashion show? Its not isolation. it helps new students adapt. And crucially, it provides a creative outlet for students at the peak of their.

Jon,

Nation states came from the treaty of Westphalia. Read the events surrounding it, much too long and much too complex to explain here, and you will realise that nation states were arbitrary creations that had precious little to do with the character, culture, or mannerisms of the people who inhabited them. A bunch of old guys negotiated. When they finished, they told people what language they would speak and what they kind of culture they would have. It was top-down. Not bottom-up.

Johnny boyo, back to name-calling are you?

"I base my assertions on a lifetime of observation. I believe what I see for myself more than what I read in books."

Lies aside, I can guarantee that, in the rare possibility that you have left Canada for a trip abroad, you have never left the tourist track. Have you ever witnessed the realities of any part of the world beyond sitting in the confines of a resort. Frankly, I doubt you ve ever been outside of Canada. But I ll make some concessions and accept that you might have visited some beach in Central America.

Oh and dont worry about the world becoming a collective hive. People disagree over everything. is the night sky black, or really dark blue. Something as simple as that can lead to factions.

What is a "wog"? Is it like "hick" or "redneck"? Because in that case I would agree. There are too many WOGs here, you included.

" I consider Obama's gang a bunch of WOGS. They apparently don't like the culture they are living it and mean to "change" or at least "hope" to."

Sounds an awful lot like you.

"Like most Canadians I don't like people who come here and reject out traditions and values."

The jewel in the crown. What are Canadian traditions and values? I would love to hear what they are, and what justification immigrants give for rejecting them?

Go on, tell us, what are Canadian traditions and values.

sput said

"Oh and dont worry about the world becoming a collective hive. People disagree over everything. is the night sky black, or really dark blue."

You haven't been paying attention. It's not what you worry about. It's what the state says you should worry about.

"Something as simple as that can lead to factions."

Emmanual Goldstein, call your office.

I read the article earlier today. It's buried in the lifestyle section of the paper, not in the news. That in itself says more than enough.

RG

Group identity politics just get weirder and weirder...MSM multicult policy translating is becoming really creepy.

Asian by the British includes the Middle East, India and Pakistan. Otherwise China and Mongolia is East Asia, Kazakhstan and those remote areas is Central Asia and everything east of India & south of China is South East Asia with the exception of Australia./ NZ.

Sput,

You ask so many questions. You don't know much do you? You don't even know what traditional Canadian culture is. What part of the world are you from anyway?

I have a question for you. Why is that is nearly all countries the vast majority speak the same language, are the same color, share the same values and for the most part the same religions? Coincidence?

"There goes those Asian youths misinterpreting Budhism again.

Posted by: irwin daisy at March 15, 2008 3:15 PM"

Funny, I don't remember the article saying what religion they were. Maybe they were a different christian cult than the old man.

Oh yes I forget, nearly all countries people also speak the same language or dialects of it.

When you think of a strong identifiable culture, you think of Japan or Poland or Ireland. They are unique and have a culture that one can visit and enjoy and even marvel at. When you visit a place like Ontario, you can't always what country you are in unless you are north of Barrie. If you are in Quebec, you ARE in a different country.

In a nation as in a family. "united we stand, divided we fall" Those are not just words, they are reality.

Diversity is not strength unless it is in a well-balanced financial portfolio.

john west - what you are ignoring, with your assertion that 'all countries speak the same language, are the same colour, share the same values etc... is TIME.

You don't seem to know history very well. It took Britain centuries to develop a shared language that overrode not merely the local dialects but the actual different languages (Welsh, Gaelic, etc), and centuries to develop shared values. That's not years but centuries.

The same with other countries. In France, in Italy, and in England - they can tell what part of the 'nation' you come from by your accent, your vocabulary. Indeed, in Italy, the northern Italian is quite different from the south. And don't forget Venice and 'veneziano'.

Same with 'skin colour' - your skin colour, your hair colour, your eye colour - can reveal what part of the 'Nation' you are from.

So, your view of homogeneity is quite wrong.
The only 'good homogeneity' is a bowl of jello. Everything else that is more complex, requires some diversity.

Canada, by the way, hasn't developed a strong sense of identity and values. It is not only not old enough, but, it has been prevented from doing so by many gov't policies. Multiculturalism is one such policy and a key problem. The low population spread out over a vast area is another reason. Centralization, with a focus on Ontario and Quebec - another reason. Our past as part of the British Commonwealth is another reason. And our embedded economy in the US is another reason. Australia, in comparison, has developed an identity and sense of values.

John,

You are correct. I do ask too many questions. But at least I am thorough and seek clarification. If I were to think like you, then I might conclude conjecturally that you have never been outside your own country. That the latter is correct, is evidenced only on the inanity of some of the things you are saying.

"When you think of a strong identifiable culture, you think of Japan or Poland or Ireland. They are unique and have a culture that one can visit and enjoy and even marvel at. When you visit a place like Ontario, you can't always what country you are in unless you are north of Barrie. If you are in Quebec, you ARE in a different country."

Japan and Poland (and most of Central and Eastern Europe) are more exceptions than the norm. Even a country like Belgium, homogenous at first glance, is divided on language lines.

The list of countries that are not homogenous is indeed large. There may be some homogeniety in religion, which tends to happen when you have only about a dozen major religions in the world, but in every other sense, every country is very very diverse

Take the two largest countries in the World - India and China. India has 16 official languages, and many thousands of dialects. China has two major languages with tens of thousands of exclusive dialects, which cant be understood by others. Of coursse CHina has also undergone a cultural revolution aimed at redefining culture, which has wiped out and systematically reduced the many other languages spoken there and cultures practiced there - the Tibetans being the most blatant case.

You seem to be of the same mindset as the Chinese commies. Make them all uniform. One "Chinese" or in your case "Canadian" culture. Ignore diversity - destroy it even.

By the way, its people like you who promote the ghettoization of cities. You would never live in a white (Canadian?) neighbourhood. People like you would create an all-white neighborhood. And then you sit and baulk at immigrants for doing the same. Ever considered the fact that they might just be reacting to people like you?

And you are right, I do not know what traditional Canadian culture is. I know what Quebecois and Acadian culture is. Even British Ontarion. But nope, no idea what Canadian culture is.

Go on, explain it to me. Let me guess - some romanticized version of workng the farm?

in this situation asian means muslim. et, are you a liberal? you seem to ignore the truth at every opportunity.

"You don't seem to know history very well. It took Britain centuries to develop a shared language that overrode not merely the local dialects but the actual different languages (Welsh, Gaelic, etc), and centuries to develop shared values. That's not years but centurie"

ET You make my point. Our country is being forced to accept too much change too fast. I already make the point that our government is the major impediment to assimilation.

I also mad the point of the various dialects and hair colors etc etc.

I don't think you bother to actually read what I say and if so, you certainly don't seem to understand it.

I know all about the fairer taller norther Italians and the shorter darker Calibrese types of the south. Of course there are always some outsiders or immigrants in every country, but they soon assimilate or they won't "fit in" .. If you don't fit in you won't stay long.

Canada is trying to ignore that fact and make all of us fit to the demands of the new comers. That can't and won't work.

Sput

"about a dozen major religions in the world"

Bwaaahahahahah .... Name them!

You are so dumb I am not going to acknowledge any more of your inane drivel. Consider yourself shunned.

"Funny, I don't remember the article saying what religion they were. Maybe they were a different christian cult than the old man."

Posted by: Libforlife at March 15, 2008 10:26 PM

Well, then that explains why you're a brain-dead liberal doesn't it? Still working on learning to tie your shoes?

Sput,

Just because John West's comments do not conform to what you believe to be true does not mean he's landlocked in Canada. As you can see above, many of my comments agree with his and I'm a former youth exchange student to Thailand (along the Burmese border). I have lived with Thais, spoken Thai, eaten Thai and many other things Thai ;).

It's not that diversity needs to be destroyed. What must be destroyed is the nation of meddling multiculturalists (tm) who believe that traditional values are less than or equal to values of others.

Nation States were created by Kings (and emperors etc) as areas of control. The example I cited earlier (France) shows this.

Joe is right. For decades in the UK "Asian" in popular usage has specifically meant "South Asian", i.e. from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. In other words British Indian (plus Ceylon), from which the first large wave of Asian immigrants came to Britain starting in the 1950s.

See:

"Strange usage of the word 'Asian' in Britain

Reports about ‘ethnic rebranding’, the wider use of hyphenated terms like Asian-British or Indian-British, reminds me of the strange use of the word Asian.

Asia starts in Turkey and ends in Japan, and yet here in Britain the term Asian is reserved for people from the sub-continent of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Why? What are the people of China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand etc etc if they are not Asian? Reserving the term Asian for sub-continentals is equivalent to restricting the term European to the Italians.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4130594.stm"

Mark
Ottawa

Libforlife;
Your Quote;
"Funny, I don't remember the article saying what religion they were. Maybe they were a different christian cult than the old man."

The story I read quoted a witness;
"On one occasion, youths shouted: 'This should not be a church, this should be a mosque, you should not be here'.

Does that sound like another "Christian Cult?"

I have no love but multiculturalism, but I think there is a difference between critiquing multiculturalism because of the theory underlying it and the manner in which it is applied, and critiquing multiculturalism mostly to bash Islam (by using Islam as the example of multiculturalism failing and dissecting it accordingly).

I engage in the former, not the latter.

And one of the reasons I m left wondering if hes landlocked in Canada is this amazing exchange""

""about a dozen major religions in the world"

Bwaaahahahahah .... Name them!"

Here Johnny - O, lets shut you up for good then.

Religions with over 2 million adherents-

Christianity
Islam
Hinduism
Judaism
Sikhism
Jainism
Buddhism
Taoism
Shintoism
Confucionism
Baha'i
Zoroastrianism

and Atheists if you wnat to count them as such. That makes 13. I might even be missing some.

But anyway, guess you dont have anything left to hide behind.

Run boy, run. Theres a difference between ignoring out of choice, and being silenced. You must know the latter very well, indeed.

I see four majors the rest or bit players or cults.

Let me guess, the four majors are Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Hinduism. Or maybe you replace Judaism with Buddhism, if you are basing it purely on numbers.

It merely reveals your ignorance.

And your apparent lack of exposure to anyone from those 'other' faiths. Travel a bit. It helps.

ET, the term WOGS is an acronym for "Working On Government Service" which is a throwback to the colonial days.

When British ships were in port overseas, they would employ the locals to load and unload the ships. The workers were given shirts with W.O.G.S. printed on them like a uniform so that the Brits would know they were supposed to be there and weren't thieves.

Since the locals were generally non-white, the term was transformed from a bureaucratic term to a racially based one over time. Thus, it has very specific use and thus you comment that someone from the next country could see you in that term is not correct. The term is only meaningful in the exact context of British colonial times and not transferable to any others.

That isn't to say it's a polite term.

Can we talk a little less utter nonsense about nations and nationalism, please?

Of course a national language goes hand in hand with a national identity, though it's not unusual for the language to emerge as the consequence of the identity and not the other way around. "Britain" is not a nation, and the British nation exists in the outside world but not in the British Isles.

Rather more kings were created by nations that the other way around, but it happens both ways.

A nation is a group of individuals, and therefore is a biological phenomenon. It isn't fixed, and changes over time. Nations die off, or are absorbed into others. New nations evolve. But by definition, a nation involves common descent. Everybody in the nation can trace his descent to the same group of people who first settled on the national territory at some definite point in the past.

Canada isn't a national state. There is no "Canadian" nation and it isn't a good idea for a Canadian to imagine that he understands what a nation is. You'll recall how many people went nuts when Stephen Harper proposed his famous resolution recognizing the French Canadians as a nation. It was simple common sense, and totally beyond the understanding of the mass of Canadians.