I think the germans targeted by ethnicity during the last World War.

Apparently, it didn't work out too well.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht
Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

Check out the one comment. It appears that the Reform Party still weighs heavily on the minds of these librano moonbats.

I know for a fact that I and others have moved beyond on those days, but those good old leftards are still stuck on stupid!

libranos target minorities - ethnic outreach
CPC target's minorities - racism

One has to love the consistency of leftarded jerk off artists!

VOTE REFORM!
GO ARMY!

I seem to recall Bob Rae's wife being targetted at the last Lib convention due to her ethnicity by a "broad strata" of the Liberal Party of Canada.

This kid obviously doesn't know that the Liverals invented the idea of special interest pandering on the basis of race, gender, etc.

They thrive on division. They profit from pitting one group against another and then calling everyone else racists.

This is the party Machiavelli would join if he were alive today.

yes warwick...you took the very words out of my mouth.

I like the excuse that they have to "reach out to people with different languages."

I don't want people who don't understand English to begin with being allowed to vote in the first place. But hey, I'm a crazy racist!!

Rationalize anything for the sake of power. The way to make sure that differentiation by race is extinguished is to differentiate by race. Quite the wobbly moral platform.

Way to go Libranos - the party of inclusion - all envelopes are treated equally, but the brown ones are "targeted".

You've got to love Jeremy's defense of liberal ethnic targeting, the game of herding designated victim groups onto the socialist plantation which has been going on systemically across NA and Europe for decades. And, Jeremy is right on his last statement..."Outreach is critical, getting rid of it would destroy the Liberal party." Politics as social work. It pretty much defines liberals and the relationship they need to create with their "clients" as "voters" are too unreliable.

This election is a study in the Dems struggling to keep everyone happy on their playground. Poor Hillary Clinton, she's unable to legitimately attack Obama with force on his vacuous idiocy because he's black. She can only whine that she's a gender victim. Obama has to pretend that the odious anti-white racist Rev. Wright rants, his pastor of 20 years, didn't reflect racial attitudes of his own. Both of them are victims of the society that they want imposed here. What irony.

The Liberals created multiculturalism in Canada, and defined it in a very unique manner. They defined it, not as a united population made up of diverse backgrounds but now functioning within a shared national identity--but as a 'diverse' or non-united population made up of separate isolated groups defined as such by their original culture. Original culture. That means it can't be changed from that original mode.

These separate groups were set up to remain separate. And non-adaptive. Frozen within a missison to repeat and repeat their old ways of life, their old beliefs and behaviour. No change. Indeed, the Liberals funded them to maintain the old lifestyle. Funding for community centres, schooling, language training (not English but their 'original' language).

This created huge dependent groups of immigrants. In the big cities which is where they all settled. This dependent population ensured voting majorities for the Liberals. The Liberals had essentially created a frozen voting population in the seat-rich big cities.

Then, the Liberals established the Charter, which has two agendas. The primary agenda of the Charter, and which takes up most of the articles and pages of that charter, is the establishment of bilingualism in Canada. This effectively split the country into two groups defined by linguistic origin - and - because you cannot make a population that which it is not..and Canada is not and never will be bilingual... the result was a disempowering of the majority of Canadian citizens.

The majority of Canadians citizens, who are not bilingual, are denied any opportunity to serve in the government. By the time, for example, a young person reaches 30 or 40 and decides to work for the govt, it's too late for bilingualism.

The other facet of the Charter dealt with the 'rest of the population', ie, those who are not of English or French origin. As a group, not as an individual, these groups are privileged in Canada. Their original ways of thought and behaviour are sacred, and not expected to change or adapt.

The result, since most immigration is to 'English Canada' is the splintering of the political power of this part of Canada. You will notice that Quebec is rejecting this denunciation of its basic identity. It is rejecting the simplistic sophistry of the Bouchard-Taylor report, which recommends for example, removing the legislative cross to 'a museum'.

Finally, the last nail against any capacity of Canadians to develop, by themselves, an identity, the Liberals set up the HRC, a system that forbids questions about these multicultural groups. No questions, no analysis, no possibility whatsoever of adapting and collaborating and developing a common Canadian identity. No possibility whatsoever. We remain splintered.

Where does our identity come from within the Land of the Liberals? From the top-down. We are informed, by the Liberal elite who Govern Us Peasnats, that 'Canadians are tolerant, peacekeepers, non-competitive, don't argue'. heh, passive followers of the UN, aren't we. And of our Liberal Leaders.

By the way - I've scrutinized in a number of elections and there's one important element missing. The elector is asked for his name and address. But never, ever, proof of citizenship. How does he get an electoral card? He can get one simply by having a driver's licence - which says nothing about citizenship. If he comes to the Voting Station without a card, all he needs to show is his driver's licence and maybe a telephone bill. No proof of citizenship.

That's what the Liberal Party is all about, the ethnic vote, and they've conveniently situated it in Toronto, where for decades they dumped immigrants. It's now the center of the Liberal universe.

They're the worst of hypocrites, couldn't care a toss about anything beyond votes. Take a look at all the Snake Oil salesmen/women who represent the ridings in Toronto and environs, they're enough to make one barf.

Damned right they're racial profilers, they invented it, they wrote the book.

What's the matter, ET? You don't like the Liberal Party agenda of self-perpetuation in power by converting Canada into a North American Yugoslavia?

From Dictionary.com:
"balkanize
–verb (used with object), -ized, -iz·ing.
1. to divide (a country, territory, etc.) into small, quarrelsome, ineffectual states.
2. (often lowercase) to divide (groups, areas, etc.) into contending and usually ineffectual factions: a movement to balkanize minority voters."

Man ET I love reading your contributions here....always well thought out and presented in a perfectly sensible and accessible manner.

And right too:).

'Targeting by ethnicity.'

Translates to: Make promises based on racial identity, which you (liberals) will not keep, anyway. Oh, and blame it on Conservatives!

"But hey, I'm a crazy racist!!"

Kathy, you say that as if there is a problem with that.

ET - there is one unifying principle espoused by the brown envelope party - which is to despise America. Nevermind that their media organs share the jubilation of a successful mars landing. The brown envelope credo is that what defines Canada is what it is not - i.e. not America. They and their lapdogs in CBC have indoctrinated our children with an irrational hatred of America as the primary defining characteristic of this overtaxed country.

In the real world, it makes sense for a political party to understand and be able to cater their message towards a variety of minority (not necessarily ethnic) groups.

Why I think this is a real problem is that if the Conservative party was "... deciding on their usefulness or lack thereof simply based on their ethnicity" the CBC, CTV and Global would all be calling the Conservatives racists.

I like this part of the kid's post "We are supposed to be a party of openness and inclusion, where all Canadians, regardless of race, religion, and background can feel comfortable and welcome."

Yeah, 'cause all those OTHER parties are such a bunch of RACISTS, eh?!!

Speaking of which, Kathy, is it racism if you object to, oh let's say Romanian strippers who work on Liberal MP's campaigns and get their citizenship without knowing any English or French?

Expiring minds wanna know.

"We are supposed to be a party of openness and inclusion, where all Canadians, regardless of race, religion, and background can feel comfortable and welcome."

LOL, whites, farmers, gun owners, stay at home moms, orangemen, pro lifers, members of the military, whites, Christians should all feel welcome by LPoC? ha ha ha,....

Males are more likely to be unemployed in Canada than women but Liberals still push hiring quotas, and bans of white males to make us feel included? or when they want to be inclusive are the groups above chopped liver and do not count? Presumably just Post trudeaupian groups are to be included?

"But hey, I'm a crazy racist!!"

Along with the majority of Canadians.

"But hey, I'm a crazy racist!!"

Well it's quite OK to be crazy but Ian Fine is coming after all the "racists", if he gets his way. (Oops! - and definition)

When I bought a house, the friendly people at Elections Canada sent me a voting card. I was on a temporary work permit at the time.

Ah……… to be living in Toronto, poor, black and unemployed with the whole Canadian system at you’re fingertips. Screw the American dream here’s where it’s at cracker jack.

ET - excellent description. In my opinion the demise of Canada actually started prior to PET, for it began with the demise of our flag. Little by little our history and heritage were destroyed and replaced by liberal mythology. The final and deadly blow however was delivered by PET.

Back in the 1920s there was a brief surge of immigration from central and eastern Europe. When new immigrants marching up the gangplank in Danzig or wherever were checked off by the purser he would bark, "Politik?"

Anyone who hadn't learned to say, "Leeberall" was pushed into the harbour.

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/january/22/conservatives/&c=1

ET you nailed it. You should get that published in the National Post.

Regarding our flag, I beleive it was Mark Steyn who opined that our flag isn't really a flag, but more of a company logo. A logo for a non existant company.

Canada has spent far too many years trying to project itself as 'nice'. If I hear one more person mention the mystical "Canada/backpack/hiking through Europe" CRAPOLA I think I'll puke.

Look you sissy Liberals, sometimes life isn't fair. Farmers also work harder than you will ever dream of and soldiers occasionally have to employ the use of large rifles to blow the craniums off the top of goat humping terrorists.

The Reform, Alliance and now the Conservative parties inevitably get charged with not being sufficiently open to ethnic minorities. It is a distortion of the facts. I found this rather delightful story going back to the days of Preston Manning. (Posted by someone called Wild Bill at http://tinyurl.com/6y82w7):

"Years ago when Reform was growing it seemed that every news spot on CBC NW was negative about Reform. Especially about how Reform was so "white bread", being made up of "old white guys". Now, any camera pan across the House would make it obvious that this was total BS. The number of visible minority faces sitting as Reform MPs was much greater than that of any other party, ESPECIALLY the Liberals! Didn't matter.

Anyhow, one night I happened to tune across some sweet young female talking head on NW interviewing Preston Manning. All her questions were not so much slanted as simply coming from some grievous and naive assumptions. She was asking Preston about the "white bread" aspect of Reform and just couldn't seem to believe him when he pointed out how Reform had so many more visible minority MPs. Finally she blurted out "Well, just HOW MANY visible minorities do you have in your party?"

Preston smiled and said sweetly "We don't really know offhand. We don't believe in counting them!" "

ET, your analysis of the Canadian citizenry is flawed on multiple levels.

First, it seems to completely leave out the possibility of individual agency. Presumably, you consider yourself to have "developed, by yourself, an identity." What allowed you to develop such a capacity, which you deem to be lacking and unavailable among members of other ethnocultural communities? Your current argument—that they self-identify according to their ethnic background, and therefore cannot self-identify as individuals—assumes that the two are mutually exclusive, and ignores the fact that all people, yourself included, successfully hold multiple self-identities simultaneously. Do you let the fact of your own particular ethnic ancestry define your present identity? If not, why do you insist that it’s so dominant factor in the identities’ of others?

Second, you assume that 'immigrant' cultures are inherently static ("separate isolated groups defined as such by their original culture...Frozen within a mission to repeat and repeat their old ways of life, their old beliefs and behaviour."), which is flawed for at least three reasons:

* One, in itself, such a claim is demonstrably false. For example, the Chinese community in Canada at present is, in their beliefs, values, cultural practises, behaviours, etc., distinguishable both from the Chinese community in Canada as it existed a century ago, and from their modern counterparts in China. In short, cultures—indigenous and ‘immigrant’—are contextual and evolve over time.

* Two, contrary to your characterization, ‘immigrants’’ cultures are not monolithic. They contain neither a singular pattern of “old ways of life” nor a singular set of “old beliefs and behaviour.” To continue with the earlier example, some members of the Canadian Chinese community adhere to a traditional Chinese belief system, others an entirely westernized system, and others still a fusion of both. An "original culture" does not exist. More accurately, when referring to an immigrant population, one can speak of "original cultures," but even then, they do not remain collectively preserved in their 'original' state for very long.

* Three, your proposed alternate ideal—“a united population made up of diverse backgrounds but now functioning within a shared national identity”—is no less a distinct ‘culture’ unto itself than any of those that you associate with immigrant groups. I suspect that you would consider this “shared national identity” to be a dynamic and living entity, such that its adherents would not be doomed to “repeat and repeat” a static way of life. But if this “shared national identity” can evolve from its original mode, then surely others can as well.

Third, you cast “funding for community centres, schooling, language training (not English but their 'original' language)” as a central lever by which “groups of immigrants” are channelled into a “frozen voting population” that’s “dependent” on the Liberal Party. This is a selective claim driven by partisanship more than reality. Though it is true that such policies and programs more often than not originate from a Liberal Party platform, neither are they unique to that party nor is their existence dependent on ongoing Liberal Party rule. PC/Conservative administrations have not only renewed Liberal-created funding schemes for community centres, schooling, language training, etc., they’ve also additionally created their own. So, there’s nothing ‘dependent’ about the voting relationship. To the extent that ethnocultural groups vote en masse for one party and not another, it is because that former party has worked harder to appeal to their particular set of interests. That’s not “racial profiling”, that’s—for better or for worse—the fundamental nature of politics. That the CPC is now adopting a similar strategy of targeting specific ethnocultural groups (see “anon’s” link, above), in addition to targeting other groups based on other criteria (military association, rural residence, religious affiliation, etc.) should tell you all you need to know.

Also, your statement that “the majority of Canadians citizens, who are not bilingual, are denied any opportunity to serve in the government” is patently false. Why just yesterday it was reported in the media that Minister Solberg is rumoured to be in the running for the DFAIT helm. Minister Solberg, you will surmise, is unilingual.

shaken - I fully agree; the Liberals have set up a means of Canadians identifying themselves by the mere strategy of defining What We Are Not. We are not Americans. And Americans are defined, for us, by the Liberals. They are, we are told, capitalist, warriors, gun-toting, individualists, etc etc.

We, on the other hand are none of this. We don't develop Big Industries; we tell ourselves that it's because we are 'nice' (I can never understand why big industries are bad'..oh well).

We instead rely on the Americans to do this. Then, they set up their branch plants in Canada, such as General Motors. Or their franchises of just about everything. And we non-capitalists work there. Remember the Quebec town that sued Wal-Mart for not having a store in that town? The town wanted Wal-Mart there, to employee its workers. And to be unionized..ahh..the sweet life. Why doesn't it occur to a Canadian to set up their own Wal-Mart?

The Liberals don't tell us the reason for our own inability to set up our own industries. We are taxed too heavily; we haven't developed an Investor Class who can finance the factories, the equipment, the long term input of monies required.

So, we work at Their Factories, and pay our enormous taxes. To fund our inadequate socialist services.

And something else. Canada rejects individualism. Our Charter focuses on groups. Identity groups. Linguistic groups (English and French). And all the other groupies. We don't acknowledge individual freedoms. We don't acknowledge the right and duty to think, question, analyze.

We are followers not innovators. We don't encourage or fund innovative research in Canada. Instead, the Evil Americans fund the research, which can years and years and millions of dollars. Then, we copy the drugs and sell them cheaply up in Canada. Because we are good and nice people. Oh - and also because we haven't invested the years and years and millions and millions...

We haven't developed our own industries; we've relied on American and foreign investment to do so. And, we've trapped ourselves. Our focus hasn't been on developing an industrial base but on developing a socialist worker's camp. So, we've allowed the Unions to move in and take complete control of the workforce.

Once a union moves in, the focus moves from providng goods and services, to providing high wages and benefits to the employees. Result? To pay for those wages and benefits, the costs of the goods becomes non-competitive. The industry gets costlier and costlier to operate. The consumer isn't going to pay the high costs of those goods..and..we then have the Union bosses (Buzz Hargrove) insisting that the Canadian taxpayer step in and 'save' the GM automotive industries in Ontario.

Why do they need saving? Because the unions have forced up costs so high that the industry can't make them; no-one can afford those cars' real costs..they are non-competitive.

Canada's exports primarily (85%) go to the USA. No country in the world is as dependent on ONE consumer nation as is Canada. We expect and insist and demand that the US purchase our goods. Why should they? If they can be made more cheaply elsewhere?

The HRCs? They are the epitome of the Liberal control over Canadians. The HRAct and Section 13 effectively rejects individual reasoning, thought, questions. You aren't allowed to question someone about their group identity, because...heck..they might feel offended. But, removing this right-to-think and question beliefs and behaviours has a disastrous result.

We cannot develop a common Canadian identity. Because we can't discuss and debate beliefs and behaviours, decide what we want to retain as a nation, and what we want to change - as a nation. The Liberal multiculturalism effectively rejects any attempt to build a nation.

See -that's my point about voting and the lack of concern for citizenship. To get a voting card while you are here only on a temporary work permit - and are NOT a citizen...how many people has this happened to?

We are a nation of immigrants. How many of them are actually citizens - and yet - even though they aren't citizens - they get to vote??? Because NO VOTE requires proof of citizenship. Just your name and address. That's all.

ET, no research in Canada? Balderdash! Here's a sample of some nice Canadian science fresh off the Phantom rant machine:
phantomsoapbox.blogspot.com/2008/05/how-sloppy-journalism-hurts-society.html

The title of the mentioned article is "How buckyballs hurt cells". A classic of scare tactic science disinformation. Your tax dollars at work.

ya...what she said! I'm no atheist but ET is otherwise spot on 99.97% of the time.

Qe- sorry, but your arguments are flawed.

To claim that IF one has an individual identity then one doesn't also have a communal identity is false, since our species is, genetically, a socialized species. Our species functions both as an individual and a member of a collective. My point is valid; the focus in our multicultural society is on the beliefs and behaviour of the collective. These are privileged (kindly check out Sections 15 and 24-7 of the Charter) which privilege the group vs the individual. Kindly check out the HRAct and see its specific focus on group rights rather than individual rights.

You'll have to provide more examples of your rejection of my claim that Canada enables non-adaptation and stasis in belief and behaviour than the Chinese community.

By the way, have you noticed how many of them don't speak English? And how their business associations are amongst themselves? The Chinese community is making use of the industrialization that is operative in Canada, but that doesn't mean that they are integrating within Canada and developing, with resident and with new Canadians, a SHARED common identity as a nation. They aren't. [And my first degree is in Chinese].

The Chinese community is not, as you agree, one type; it's made up of a number of groups - and these remain intact within themselves.

My conclusions are valid; Canada does not encourage assimilation and integration and a shared, collaborative attempt to build a common Canadian identity. Instead, what we have are immigrant groups making use of the industrialization and social programs of Canada, to simply live a better 'same life' and beliefs as they did before. They aren't integrating as Canadians.

Your point three is totally unclear. You are ignoring my point - it isn't happening.

Nonsense - your attempt to slither out of Liberal responsibility for multiculturalism is specious rhetoric. The Liberals set it up, deliberately, to obtain dependent voting blocs. Your statement that the Conservatives are continuing with this doesn't mean that they approve; it means that you can't overturn a generation of such an infrastructure in a year.

Ahh, so an ethnic group has a 'particular set of interests'? So, you are admitting that they function as a group and not as individuals?

And no, appealing to such identity groups is not 'politics'; it's corrupt and manipulative politics. Your examples of military, rural residency are invalid analogies, for these lack common ideologies,

When I say that the majority of Canadians are denied the opportunity to serve in govt, I mean it. Your one example of an elected member of parlt, Solberg is hardly a majority. Try again. The fact is, the key govt positions, and these include the appointed positions, are primarily bilingual.

Try again, QE, and this time, provide some facts.

this is a somewhat silly post. of course ethnicities should be targeted; any political strategist on any point on the political spectrum is aware of this necessity. sending a uniform message to protestant and catholic, black and white, etc. is an indication of a party not in touch with the populace. the conservative party of canada does it to, and rightly so. you are using the mere appearance of impropriety to attempt to score points for your ideology, which is intellectually dishonest.

more importantly however, you fail to recognize the gaping distinction between ethnicity and race. see 'othering' and 'self-identification' to start off with and feel free to report back on what you learn. then retract this idiocy.

"othering"? Dude, I'd rather shoot myself than deface the English language looking that up. "Othering", forsooth. Egad.

I think Et got it right. Take the tamil tigers, they serve a purpose for the liberals. Their leaders can guarantee a block of liberal votes, by cultural means, that we wouldn't understand, nor tolerate.

The liberals were somewhat embarrassed when it was found out by some immigrants that Bob Rae's wife was Jewish, that made them have to put dainty Dion in, who couldn't run a kool-aid stand. Looks good on the so-called multicultural assholes, a party without a leader.

Ask anyone who works in an immigration office, of the overtime they were made to work, just before an election. A rubber stamp of approval, no questions asked, just vote liberal.

There is lots of problems counting on the immigrant vote to get in. One being, many bring their dysfunctional set of political and cultural values with them. The deals you have to cut with them, such as trying to implement sharia law, just don't set easy with the majority of Canadians.

The liberals might as well kiss thier asses good-bye.

Course syllabus:

Targeting by Ethnicity

Targeting by Race or racial preference

Targeting by Sexual preference

Targeting by Gender identity

Targeting by (insert your own)

Well, Phantom, I'd rather shoot myself than ponder "self-identification".

But, for fun let's ponder the American Founding Fathers, those old white guys that added to the Anglosphere's accumulative values "all men are created equal" as a universal collective truth pondering a place for "othering" and "self-identification".

Simple. Astute. Devoid of nuance. Devoid of tribalism. Devoid of lefty idiocy.

My self-identification, is that I am Canadian, and live in Canada, and I feel no need to kiss the immigrant ass. This is Canada, and if you don't like our ways, you can leave. We are not flocking to live in your backward barbaric countries, because we don't see them fit for man nor beast to inhabit. Yes, our culture is superior to yours. Your culture destroyed your country, and made it into a big shithole. So it is best you adapt to our ways, and embrace civilization.

Kathy: "I don't want people who don't understand English to begin with being allowed to vote in the first place. "

Kathy, I love all 60 inches of you, but are you seriously trying to disenfranchise approximately 2 million Quebecois who can only speak French? In many cases, their families have been in Canada for generations more than most English speakers.

ET,

Sorry my friend, but I think you've got one of your basic premises wrong. The Liberals did not start the idea of "multi-culturalism". In 1978, it was PET's "bi and bi" versus Joe Who?'s "community of communities". After PET's re-election, he cared only about his precious constitutional file, and left the sordid business of winning elections to such paragons of civic virtue as Keith Davey and Jim Coutts. Only the most cynical amongst us could believe that these stalwarts would deliberately change immigration rules and standards so as to import vast numbers of voters who would meekly choose Liberal for the rest of their lives.

"The Chinese community is making use of the industrialization that is operative in Canada, but that doesn't mean that they are integrating within Canada and developing, with resident and with new Canadians, a SHARED common identity as a nation. They aren't."

On what basis in fact do you make such a claim? Have you undertaken a comprehensive survey of self-identity among the entire Canadian Chinese population? Have you conducted in-depth interviews with representative members of the community? Or, far more likely, is this over-confident and outlandish generalization grounded only in your own anecdotal--and therefore worthless--observations?

"These are privileged (kindly check out Sections 15 and 24-7 of the Charter) which privilege the group vs the individual."

Yours is a rather odd reading of the Charter, and one that is not supported by case law. You are confusing 'group rights,' which the Charter enshrines, with 'collective rights,' which the Charter does not. Collective rights are those that may be claimed only by entire groups acting in unison. Group rights, by contrast, may be exercised by individuals or groups. S. 15 does not "privilege" the group over the individuals; rather, it guarantees the right of the individual to not be discriminated against on the basis on their group membership.

There is nothing about making a claim for group-based representation under s. 15 that contradicts one's identity as an individual

You are demanding a formalist, procedural approach to individualism in our constitution, similar to that of the US. What this ignores is the reality that individuals discriminate against other individuals based on the latter's perceived group membership. Far from ignoring individuals, the Charter is therefore an ameliorative document that actually protects individuals against the oppressive group-based othering of their prejudiced peers.

"When I say that the majority of Canadians are denied the opportunity to serve in govt, I mean it."

Then you should have said that the first time, rather than "The majority of Canadians citizens, who are not bilingual, are denied any opportunity to serve in the government."

it's not nuance sweetie, bless your little heart. i admit that having a degree puts me at a distinct advantage here, but just because i self-identify as sudanese-canadian (or whatever), doesn't mean the liberal party is looking to use my blackness (or whatever). i understand your need to simplify things, what with the homeschooling, but quit pretending you didn't look them up. p.s. your easy mac is getting cold.

I guess this proves that the Liberals are racist.

So? So... don't vote Liberal!

"What this ignores is the reality that individuals discriminate against other individuals based on the latter's perceived group membership."

Or rather I should say, "What this ignores is the reality that individuals discriminate against other individuals based on the former's perception of the latter's group membership(s)."

"i admit that having a degree puts me at a distinct advantage here,"
Well then bless your heart puddin, didn't they teach you how to capitalize (or whatever)?

didn't they teach you how to capitalize (or whatever)?
I should have said "how to use capital letters"
Man, midnight shift kills the brain.

QE - I suspect that you are quite young, still in undergrad or grad school and thoroughly indoctrinated in Trudeaupianism. Your opinions are ungrounded.

That includes your attempts at rebuttal of my conclusions by means of irrelevant diversions.

1) You can't rebut my conclusions about the nature of the Chinese community by insisting that such conclusions be founded in a full scale research study. You can only rebut by facts.

2) You can't rebut my focus on the group or collective by semantic twisting (varied definitions of group/collective). Section 15, I repeat, privileges the group identity over the individual identity. Group= collective.

3) You can't rebut my focus on the individual by further semantic trivia - such as 'formalist' and the typical Liberal anti-Americanism.

You state: "Far from ignoring individuals, the Charter is therefore an ameliorative document that actually protects individuals against the oppressive group-based othering of their prejudiced peers."

The above is both logical and semantic rubbish. How does it 'ameliorate'? What exact clauses do that? How does it protect the individual from the 'oppressive group-based 'othering' ? What exact clauses do that? And what the heck does that NewSpeak postmodernism of 'othering' mean? Haven't you recovered from Derrida and Said yet?

What does 'prejudiced peers' mean?

4) You must be kidding. You are trying to defend your ignorance by running into the semantic haven of whether or not the sentence included the term 'any'? What does that have to do with my rebuttal of your sole example of Solberg??? Surely you can't be that dim as to think that the term 'majority' = one??

Your posts, with their ungrounded postmodernist terminology and specious rhetoric betray your youth and your being brainwashed in postmodern rhetoric. I suggest a few books on logic and critical thinking.

Isn't it interesting, ET, that the Librano doctrine against "othering" has as its foundation an "othering" of America(ns).

But will they be held accountable for facilitating the immigration of so many handgun lovers to Toronto? The city where your teenage daughter can be shot dead in broad daylight on the main street on Boxing Day by one of these handgun lovers?

ET, assuming your premise that groups of urban immigrants have no assimilation with 'Canadian' society is true in the first place (for the record, the onus is on you to justify such an bold claim - not on anyone else to disprove it), why does it even matter? Are you arbiter of what it means to be a Canadian?

They pay taxes, vote in elections, and receive social benefits as are due to any other citizen. Their culture (or lack of culture?) affects you to the same extent that I affect you, or vice-versa - exactly zero, in any substantial sense. Its not as if they're getting handouts from any other part of the country - Toronto generates significantly more tax revenue than it gets back in provincial and federal funding.

How different is a small ethnocentric enclave in urban Toronto, speaking only Chinese from a small ethnocentric enclave in rural Alberta, speaking only English?

Does being part of the majority make you more 'Canadian?' What does that even mean? And more importantly, what even should it mean? Does it matter?

Also, as an aside, it seems that establishing voting blocs in dense 'seat-rich big cities' is an awfully poor way to establish a majority, considering urban votes are worth considerably less per capita thanks to our plurality voting system. If there was any semblance of proportional representation, the situation would become dramatically more skewed.

ET, assuming your premise that groups of urban immigrants have no assimilation with 'Canadian' society is true in the first place (for the record, the onus is on you to justify such an bold claim - not on anyone else to disprove it), why does it even matter? Are you arbiter of what it means to be a Canadian?

They pay taxes, vote in elections, and receive social benefits as are due to any other citizen. Their culture (or lack of culture?) affects you to the same extent that I affect you, or vice-versa - exactly zero, in any substantial sense. Its not as if they're getting handouts from any other part of the country - Toronto generates significantly more tax revenue than it gets back in provincial and federal funding.

How different is a small ethnocentric enclave in urban Toronto, speaking only Chinese from a small ethnocentric enclave in rural Alberta, speaking only English?

Does being part of the majority make you more 'Canadian?' What does that even mean? And more importantly, what even should it mean? Does it matter?

Also, as an aside, it seems that establishing voting blocs in dense 'seat-rich big cities' is an awfully poor way to establish a majority, considering urban votes are worth considerably less per capita thanks to our plurality voting system. If there was any semblance of proportional representation, the situation would become dramatically more skewed.

Also, your assertion that 'Liberal multiculturalism' hamstrings Canada as a 'nation' is patently ridiculous. Last I checked, Canadians don't vote in a referendum every time an issue needs to be decided. This is why we have elected officials.

A Liberal government voted in by urban immigrants is exactly as effective at enacting national policies as a PC government voted in by rural Westerners. Once the ballots have been cast, the individual constituents ultimately have very little impact on the day-to-day politics of this country.

Shaken, please don't tell me you are seriously trying to use an isolated shooting as emblematic of anything more. Take a look at statistics on violent crime over the years (here's a hint: it's declining). And while you're at it, take a look statistically at who's most likely to get shot in this country (here's another hint: it's not city-dwellers).

Absurd.

(apologies for the double post up there. Firefox doesn't seem to want to display new comments, so if a moderator could delete that post - and this one - that would be appreciated)