I’m still sick. So, it’s a readers tips post for now, and I’ll be back later.
For those interested in the ongoing discussion on feminism, this post by Maxed Out Mamma ;
I meant what I said about women not being able to be honest about what they want, and then taking out their unhappiness and insecurity on men.
Here’s a dispatch with tons of photos from Israel’s second rocket war, the one on the border with Gaza, the one almost every journalist in the country is completely ignoring for whatever reason.
The death of multi-culturalism in the UK – “How right wing the left sounds after its moment of racial truth”
Leave yours in the comments. Behave yourselves. As I mentioned earlier, NeoCitron brings out my mean streak.
Re the wrong runway answer; If this were true why are we castigating the crew. With thirty-five years of Aviation experience,(Military and Civilian) I know that any airport which deals with regular services would have a tower staff that would not have let that jet get ten feet without hollering for reverse thrust. At least they would have stopped it before the boundry fence.
Incidently Kate, dont try thr hot bath and rum thing. Its a hoax. I tried it and couldnt drink an eighth of the hot bath.
maryjane, if part 1 doesn’t preclude the application of part 2, and, the CONTENT of part 2 privileges the group over the CONTENT of part 1, the individual, then, part 2 trumps part 1.
Examples of judgments against individuals based on group membership include the rejection of the individual right to post signs in other languages than French in Quebec.
They include the promotion and funding, in the millions, of groups devoted to promoting the identity of citizens based around ‘country of origin’ rather than promoting individuals moving out of that group identity and forming a new one in Canada. The gov’t should not be involved in funding these identity groups; if they want to exist, they should fund themselves privately.
You don’t seem to ‘get it’. You are looking for instances where the group violates the rights of the individual, when the reality is that the individual in Canada doesn’t exist. Individuals are always defined as a member of a group, religious or ethnic. You ask for instances when the group violates the individual; that’s like asking for instances in Canada when deer violate the rights of kangeroos. There aren’t any kangeroos in Canada. There aren’t any individuals in Canada.
In the absence of a national identity and the rejection of individuals as the sole criterion of citizenship identity, and when you set up your nation as conglomerates of different groups with identities based on old countries of origin, then, you get those groups ideologically sealed and preventing individuals from developing new identities. Examples are the many immigrants who cannot speak English even after years of living here, examples include children who claim greater filiation with the origin country than Canada.
And you get these groups vying with each other for federal funds, as they do now. Asking for special legal rights as they do now (Sharia Law). Asking for religious rights (turban in the Mounties, ceremonial sword to school). Insisting on group identity, as they do now (SoW, Muslim groups, Tamils, Quebec, aboriginals, etc)with spokesmen for the group.
With the predominance of the group over the individual, you get these groups insisting on a homogeneous identity. Example is the Muslim rejection of reformers like Tarek Fatan and Irshad Manji who have been threatened by their ‘group’ because they act as individuals rather than as members of their ‘group’.
Examples of group ideology are the email evidence of women, citizens, but members of the group,advocating violent harm to Canada and Canadians.
Examples are affirmative action hiring policies which promote hiring by group identity rather than merit.
ET…I think your grasping at straws. If memory serves any court decisions regarding sign laws in Quebec had nothing to do with Section 15. I believe the law was struck down and the notwithstanding clause was invoked.
The rest of your argument is predicated on the assertion that the “individual does not exist” in Canada. Obviously that is nonsense. If they don’t exist in Canada, they don’t exist anywhere.
If anything keeps groups ideologically sealed it is religion, not multiculturalism. Maybe that’s where the government should start de-funding.
I guess they don’t have affirmative action programs in the non-multicultural USA.
BTW, my Russian grandmother spoke little English after 50 plus years in Canada. None of her grandchildren speak any Russian. That is just the reality of the immigrant experience in North America, or anywhere else for that matter.
….”The RCMP says it would oppose opening any more supervised injection sites in Canada ****until it sees convincing evidence that such sites help get people off drugs.****”
canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=c0ed9be3-33d0-494d-80bd-591ed2f8a09b&k=10470
…”B.C. RCMP spokesman John Ward says because Vancouver’s supervised injection site does not fall under RCMP jurisdiction, it is not appropriate for the RCMP to offer an opinion on whether it should remain open.
….”We can’t oppose [the Vancouver site] because it’s not in our jurisdiction,” Ward said. “But we would certainly oppose any site like that in RCMP jurisdiction.”
….The release was issued, Ward said, to refute earlier media reports that said the RCMP supported supervised injection sites.”
~~~~~
And up pops a “progressive” blogger, to say:
“The RCMP has no right to offer any opinions on what should happen; they work for us.
The RCMP needs a serious lesson on their place in society and this country.
The police force has no business in trying to influence policy, the RCMP has no business adjudicating peer-review published works;
they are grunts, they aren’t paid to think, they’re paid to follow orders.”
… it’s time to do what many in our Municipal Governments have wanted to do for years; go back to Municipal Police forces.
Make no mistake, I am calling for, and intend to work towards, the disbanding of the RCMP….”
progressivebloggers.ca/
**** are my highlights, for a reason;)
The blogger is absolutely right. The RCMP’s job is to enforce the law , not to lobby for which laws they want and which they don’t.
If the RCMP is going to comment for or against safe injection centers, then they have an obligation to put forward a professional summary of debate for their argument.
From where I sit, it seems that these centers do more good than harm. I admit my view is limited as I am not a drug user, [ except for caffien].
When the RCMP puts a total stop to injected drug use, then there will be no need for safe injection sites.
Otherwise, a reasonable explanation of how these sites are doing more harm than good would be enlightening. = TG
For anyone who may consider buying a hybrid or EV car.
There is a short piece including words from Toyota City that will give you valued insight
when thinking about Hybrid versus purebred.
ht tp /BendGovernment.blogspot.com
Be informed. Avoid the costs of converting your hybrid. = TG