133 Replies to “The Save Mickey Campaign”

  1. lookout: “Might it [your hypothesis that black miscreants are unfairly targeted in the schools] have anything to do with their BEHAVIOUR?” and “Do you actually WANT irresponsible, unintelligent, and semi to full juvenile delinquents to be let off the hook?”
    Blazingcatfur: The root cause of this violence is the Family Dysfunction within the Jamaican community – single mothers raising multiple children by multiple fathers is an abysmal cultural practice. These issues did not arise as a result of some bogeyman called structural discrimination. They are the result of personal choices. Choices that have become acceptable standards of behavior within the Jamaican community. This behavior did not magically happen to Jamaicans on arrival in Canada, rather I suggest they were imported norms.
    You both seem to be raising the same issue, so I’ll address it together.
    On your two questions, lookout, my short answers are “Yes, at least in part” and “No, of course not.” But I will elaborate.
    First, let me be clear, so that I’m not later accused of simply “writing off” personal responsibility and choice. Individual delinquent behaviour is indeed a problem, and that if any individual (black, white, asian, male, female…) commits a crime or otherwise breaks a rule, then they ought to face the full consequences of that transgression. I stress “individual” here because one can legitimately view the problem at multiple levels simultaneously. And at the individual level (e.g., when we talk about Mr. Beckford specifically), I believe that everyone should be held responsible for their own choices.
    So, let us agree that individual-level delinquent behaviour is a problem. Like myself, you are both searching for the “root causes” of this behaviour, which takes us away from the level of the individual. You yourselves find the root causes in “Jamaican culture,” which you’ve characterized as including a “lack of initiative and responsibility” and “family dysfunction” (single motherhood + fatherhood with multiple partners) — all of which you believe have become “acceptable standards of behaviour” among Jamaicans.
    I don’t deny that these patterns of behaviour are problematic. However, I don’t think they’re the sole root causes, and indeed, I don’t think that “culture” is the root cause at all (particularly when the characteristics of that culture are conveniently defined by “us” rather than “them”). As I said earlier, individual choice and structural factors are irreducibly linked, with the former constrained and shaped by the latter (and vice versa, over longer periods of time). Again, it’s not one or the other, it’s both.
    So, while we can — and should — hold individual black delinquents responsible for their actions, we can — and should — simultaneously examine the constraints that “black communities” faces at the structural level.
    Blazingcatfur, it’s interesting that you cited the UNICEF report. It offers a good illustration of a more balanced perspective that I’d advocating for. So, while it acknowledges individual behaviour choices (parenting style, poor communication, unsafe sex practises leading to HIV contraction and early parenthood), it also acknowledges some of the structural discriminations that I referred to earlier:
    “Many single parent households face specific social and economic challenges for both the parent and the children…High rates of migration, which are partially in response to declining social and economic prospects, have contributed to the weakening of the family and community support structures. Many parents leave the island in order to seek employment overseas. Often children are left with inadequate guidance and protection…[HIV-positive] Children and their parents may also suffer from stigma and discrimination from the community and the wider society.”
    Similar economic and social factors are at play among Jamaican communities in Canada; they are not merely “some bogeyman.” It’s indeed a vicious web, involving economic marginalization, limited life choices, poor personal choices, delinquent and anti-social behaviour, discriminatory sanctions, etc. etc. Trying to lay the “root cause” blame at any one level is playing chicken-and-egg.
    Solutions? Too complex for this thread, of course. Yes, I think parents need to take responsibility for their children, and the children themselves, as they mature into adults, need to take responsibility for themselves. But, the onus should not be entirely on the Jamaican community either, since the structural contributors implicate the entire wider society. So, while paternalistic handouts are not the solution either, we collectively should not shirk our share of responsibility, which includes at the very least acknowledging, and condemning, instances of discrimination and prejudice when and where they occur.
    Also, further to the “culture” argument, in the mid-1800s, criminal arrests in Toronto disproportionately involved Irish immigrants. At the time, the wider community blamed it on “Irish culture,” which was deemed by social reformers as inherently lazy, ungrateful, unintelligent, and violent. A few decades later, it was the Chinese labourers who were targeted, their “Asiatic culture” derided as primitive, immoral, perverted, unhygienic, unassimilable. Ditto Jewish communities. And so on…
    Sure, at the individual level, those who committed crimes deserved the punishments they got (though we also now know that not all groups received equal punishments for equal crimes), but if we step back and look at the wider picture, it’s interesting to note that the Irish (Chinese, Jewish) communities in their times occupied the same economically marginalized, “second-tier” social status as the Jamaican communities do now. So maybe those structural arguments carry some explanatory value after all. And it’s also interesting that your current criticisms of Jamaican culture echoes quite closely those of the social reformers at the time, who lamented the deplorable “acceptable standards of behaviour” considered inherent to “Irish culture.”
    A question for you, lookout: Do you believe these Toronto social reformers in the 1800s were correct in their assessment of “Irish culture” as being inherently lazy, ignorant, delinquent, belligerent, etc.?

  2. A’dam, this is a comment thread for a personal blog. On such comment threads, a great many things are discussed and written that would never be discussed in polite society…politics, religion, sexuality, dog breeding (just kidding, Kate!), etc.
    So your rhetorical question to me was, of course, something that would be answered in the negative. I dislike Liberals and I HATE the memory of PET (spit!) but I would never discuss my dislike of Liberals when in public with them…it is impolite.
    But by the same token, I am not going to pretend, in private conversations such as this, that problems do not exist just because the problems exist with one identifiable segment of society.
    As you asked, were/are the Irish unreformable? No!
    Were/are the Germans unreformable? No!
    Were/are the Japanese unreformable? No!
    Were/are the Dutch unreformable? Er, um, uh…No?
    Are Jamaicans unreformable? No!
    Are the Irish, Germans, Japanese and Dutch(*) problems now? No! Are Jamaicans a problem now? Yes!
    Ergo, Jamaicans are a problem and they need to be “fixed”…then they can be removed from my list of people I don’t like and join everyone else in the world except me on my list of people I don’t particularly care for. I’m not racist, I’m antisocial! 😉
    (*) “Wooden shoes, wooden head, wouldn’ listen”…I love that old saying! Kidding!!

  3. A’dam said;
    Blazingcatfur, it’s interesting that you cited the UNICEF report. It offers a good illustration of a more balanced perspective that I’d advocating for. So, while it acknowledges individual behaviour choices (parenting style, poor communication, unsafe sex practises leading to HIV contraction and early parenthood), it also acknowledges some of the structural discriminations that I referred to earlier:
    A’dam you miss my point. You mentioned the bogeyman of structural discrimination as if this this existed in Canada to begin with and was a creation of Canadian society.
    I pointed out that the abysmal norms of behavior found in Jamaican culture are imported- as in home grown. If you insist on structural discrimination as a cause by all means address it- in Jamaica, not here.
    I am sure there are positive aspects to Jamaican culture A’dam, just as there are to be found anywhere, but we are talking about more important issues here, crime and family dysfunction, which unfortunately are the cultural hallmarks of the Jamaican community most prominently on display and most negatively impact the community which welcomed them with open arms.
    A’dam you’re attempt to link the immigrant experience of the Irish et al simply doesn’t wash. You cannot compare the experiences of recent immigrants i.e Jamaicans, to a 19th century event. The Irish of the 19th century had no access to even a fraction of the resources currently available to immigrants and we turned out Ok, by the way we do like to drink- alot;) Surely you don’t suggest that recent immigrants have been denied resources & opportunity?

  4. Adam said;
    “Blazingcatfur: A’dam the civilized world has no place for moral relativism.
    It’s no place for “cultural absolutism” either, whether of the paternalistic or oppressive kind. Let’s not forget that while the “civilized world” ushered in many, many positive developments, it was responsible for perpetuating the African slave trade, the White Australia policy, Aboriginal residential school systems, the Chinese Immigration Acts, etc. All of these actions, now near-universally condemned as discriminatory and ill-conceived, were at their times seen as completely justified, since the notion that “our” culture was superior to “theirs” was considered self-evident.”
    A’dam I stand by my position on moral relativism. Your attempt to link criticism of the Jamican community with cultural absolutism via the examples you cite is called moral equivalence- that’s another piety of the PC canon the civilized worls has no place for;)

  5. A’dam, it seems that your response makes a real attempt to be thoughtful, but, if I were grading your work, I’d require you to tighten up the arguments, provide concrete examples and details vs generalizations, and stay on topic.
    E.g., A’dam, re your smokescreen question to me about the Irish in the 1800s: apples and oranges, my boy.
    My ancestors were actually here then and were both Irish AND social reformers: they most certainly didn’t see the Irish as hopeless cases–and they set high standards. Keep in mind, there was no easy-to-come-by-for-no-personal-cost social safety net. The Irish who came here endured gargantuan hardships both in transit and for years, if not decades after arrival–not at all the experience of the criminal Jamaican freeloaders we’re discussing here. And my ancestors’ expectations for their fellow Irish were proven correct. Whatever the culture, it was not the mess that the Jamaican culture of fatherless families/entitled, wayward youth is today–and has been for generations.
    Re the Irish, after a generation or two over here, the majority worked hard–they had little choice if they didn’t want to live in misery–prospered, and profited Canadian society in many ways.
    Quite rightly, the less effective individuals of the immigrant cultures you note were not propped up by a welfare state and a subversive Charter that ENABLES the anti-social behaviour of irresponsible AND entitled miscreants.
    You answer my question about accountability and say you agree that individuals should be held to account: good. However, as I and others have pointed out over and over, accountability ain’t happening. Too many in the Jamaican community, itself, as well as the authority structures in this country have refused to call it like it is. What do you think of this double-edged abdication of responsibility?
    Instead, you say, “So, while we can — and should — hold individual black delinquents responsible for their actions, we can — and should — simultaneously examine the constraints that ‘black communities’ faces at the structural level.” Then you move on to another topic.
    I contend that the constraints to which you refer have everything to do with the myriad of poor choices endemic to the Jamaican family structure, both here and in Jamaica AND with Canada’s welfare state and mentality, which provide a haven for n’er do wells.
    Solutions: There are two main ones, both of which will be very difficult to effect.
    1) Jamaicans, themselves, have to change the way they “do business”. The high degree of entitlement, along with the low degree of expectations (both in their own community and of the PC flunkies in our public institutions–e.g., schools and courts), re family structure, education, and logical thinking (trying to deal reasonably with some of the mothers of my students was an exercise in frustration and futility) are all very serious structural problems.
    Unless the Jamaican community is willing to own these problems, which means clearly naming them and NOT blaming everyone but themselves, matters will go from bad to worse. (And it is the Jamaican faith communities, not the Julian Falconers, which should be enlisted to work on this.)
    2) Political correctness has got to go and, along with it, the ludicrous reality–Charter driven: thanks, Bertha Wilson–that anyone whose foot touches Canadian soil has almost unlimited “rights”. The social and political assumptions of the left-wing cabals that run this country have to be challenged and changed.
    Immigration laws need to be overhauled: unless there’s very good reason, people who will only drain our resources should be denied entry. Wait times to become landed or a citizen should be extended: if the person has criminal convictions, send that person back to whence he/she came–pronto. Review the “family reunification” guidelines: for sure, restrict the number of dependent and/or non productive relations who may arrive here on the coattails of one person.
    And then there’s the CHARTER. That document has been the cause of more social breakdown in this country than almost any other factor, as it promotes self-referential, entitled behaviour, always at the expense of accountability and responsibility.
    The amending formula needed to change the Charter is so stringent that that route is pretty well closed off. So, it’s up to our ELECTED politicians to wrest power from the UNELECTED lawmakers in this country–our judges–by using the notwithstanding clause (Section 33 of the Charter) to uphold the laws which our ELECTED representatives have duly voted on in our parliaments. (The idea that the notwithstanding clause is dangerous is a pernicious, left-wing myth and the exact opposite of the truth of the matter.)
    Until the notwithstanding clause is appropriated, Canadian society will continue to be hijacked by small, anti-social groups, e.g., badly behaved, minority status school children to criminal Jamaican gangs, aided and abetted by our judicial overlords, almost with impunity.
    A’dam, this problem is certainly not all in the hands of Jamaican Canadians. Our political elites also have dirty hands. All of them need to smarten up. (Unlike you, however, I’m pretty clear sighted about the shortcomings of “my” group, which has wrongly promoted the Charter. I make no excuses for them. These people are wrong headed sycophants and toadies, not to mention subversives. Their thoughts and actions have seriously undermined the good order and stability of Canadian society and I think it’s high time for the rest of us to say, “ENOUGH!” and take back our country.)
    Re the Julian (impeccable, left-wing credentials) Falconer Inquiry, given an extension, at how many extra $$, I wonder: I have very little confidence that it will provide more than platitudes and bromides. Wouldn’t it be nice if I’m wrong?

  7. A’dam I will give credit for sticking around. My opinion is that this thread represents the best possible means of addressing the issues raised. A no holds barred, all the cards on the table, dump the PC pieties, frank exchange.
    This is the point Kathy, myself and others such as Canadian Observer & lookout are trying to make.
    Free Speech is Hard A’dam – but it gets things done. Politically Correct BS is both harmful and stupid and if anything best represents the concept of of Structural Discrimination you cite.

  10. Blazingcatfur: A’dam you miss my point…I pointed out that the abysmal norms of behavior found in Jamaican culture are imported- as in home grown. If you insist on structural discrimination as a cause by all means address it- in Jamaica, not here.
    Actually, you missed my point, which is that structural issues exist everywhere — in Jamaica, in Canada, in the past and in the present. They differ to some extent depending on the context, but there are also more universal structural issues such as economic barriers, imbalances in political and social power, status hierarchies, and the like. And there’s no doubt that Jamaicans face multiple forms of discrimination in Canada.
    …we are talking about more important issues here, crime and family dysfunction, which unfortunately are the cultural hallmarks of the Jamaican community most prominently on display and most negatively impact the community which welcomed them with open arms.
    That’s the difference between us (but do correct me if I’m wrong). You speak about high crime rates and family dysfunction, along with lack of initiative and denial of personal responsibility, as though they’re inherent and inseparable characteristics of “Jamaican culture.” The assumption is that the existence of one inexorably implies the existence of the other. In other words, the culture itself is the problem — no wonder, then, that you require the culture itself to change. I acknowledge that these problems of crime and family dysfunction exist in the community, but that they’re not an inevitable component of Jamaican life. We disagree, fundamentally, on what it means to be Jamaican.
    Which is why my reference to earlier generations of Irish and Asian immigrants stands. I’m not saying that their immigrant experiences are the same as those of Jamaicans today. I’m saying that your belief (that lack of responsibility and initiative, etc. are inherent “cultural hallmarks” of Jamaicans) repeats the same formulaic assumptions as the social reformers of the past. At that time, those who held anti-Irish sentiments truly believed that laziness, irresponsibility, etc. were inherent “cultural hallmarks” of the Irish. Likewise, those who held anti-Asian sentiments in the early 1900s truly believed that licentiousness, deviousness, etc. were inherent “cultural hallmarks” of the Chinese. Yet, in the time since, neither Irish nor Chinese cultures have fundamentally changed; they did not expunge laziness, deviousness, and the rest from their cultural practises — because they weren’t ‘cultural’ to begin with.
    Your attempt to link criticism of the Jamican community with cultural absolutism via the examples you cite is called moral equivalence
    Again, you miss my point. I’m not saying that your criticisms of the Jamaican community are morally equivalent to policies like White Australia and the Chinese Immigrant Acts. Rather, I’m simply pointing out that they share a similar underlying assumption: “The Other’s culture is inferior to Ours.” Do you not hold this view? That, on balance, “Canadian culture” is somehow superior to “Jamaican culture”?

  11. lookout, a question for you: Is there any requirement in your proposed solution for you to change your attitudes or way of thinking in any way?
    I ask because it seems like you expect everyone else to change, to essentially adopt your way of thinking. As far as I can tell, your proposal calls for:
    – Jamaicans to change (by accepting personal responsibility for their community’s problems)
    – society to change (by abandoning “PC talk,” for example)
    – policies to change (by revamping the immigration system, for example)
    – the Constitution to change (by drastically amending the Charter)
    – political elites to change (by “smartening up,” whatever that entails)
    – (white? non-Jamaican?) lefties to change (by no longer “promoting the Charter,” renouncing their “wrong-headed, subversive, toadish, sycophant” ways, refraining from “undermining the good order and stability of society,” and allowing you to “take back your country”).
    So, while it seems that everyone and everything under the moon must get their act together, you’re awfully silent on your own role in all this. Could it be that — ironically enough — you’re trying to shirk your share of responsibility? No, that couldn’t be it — you’re all about taking ownership and personal responsibility.
    So I ask again, lookout: Is there any requirement in your proposed solution for you to change your attitudes or way of thinking in any way?

  12. Eeyore: A’dam, this is a comment thread for a personal blog…I am not going to pretend, in private conversations such as this, that problems do not exist just because the problems exist with one identifiable segment of society.
    A personal blog, yes, but a public — not private — one. This is ergo not a private conversation. But you (and I) can treat it like one because you (and I) choose to post anonymously, and therefore unaccountably.
    I would never discuss my dislike of Liberals when in public with them…it is impolite.
    Impolite, yes, but also costly. You risk stares of disapproval, being heckled, a potential punch in the nose, etc.
    Those same risks are not present here, despite it also being a public space of sorts, because one is anonymous. And so one can be as impolite as one wishes, knowing that there are no consequences, like a punch to the nose, to worry about.
    I wonder, Eeyore, whether you’d still be willing to say, outright and without qualifiers, that “Jamaicans are a problem” if you were actually accountable for your words — say, if your photo appeared beside your post, or you had to sign off each comment with your real name.

  13. Well for once, A’dam, I can altogether agree with you re what I’d like to see changed: yup, it’s all the things I’ve mentioned and which you reference. Why? Because the present situation in Canada doesn’t help either Jamaican (and other), parasitic n’er do wells or the rest of society.
    For the record, young man, I’ve already done and continue to do my share–and maybe even more than my share. Among many other positive contributions I’ve made to our society, I pay exorbitant amounts of tax and I’ve taught my very challenged Jamaican/Canadian students diligently and with a high degree of success. I demonstrated my respect for them–often not reciprocated by either them or their single moms–by setting high expectations, giving the required support, and expecting that those expectations to be met. By all accounts, both behaviourally and academically, these boys made fine gains in my classes.
    Your altogether inadequate response–off topic again and ad hominem–to my very legitimate concerns is, frankly, most disrespectful. (You did say you were from Jamaica, after all. Touche!) I’ve expended all the energy I’m willing to in order to deal with your juvenile meanderings.
    Good afternoon, A’dam, and you might actually give some thought to the changes I’d like to see. If you should then actually have any intelligent analysis, I’d consider responding. Good luck.

  14. Who commits 99% of the serious and violent crime in Toronto (murder, assaults, rape, home invasion, etc.)? We should stop all immigration from the islands because it only adds to our growing problem in Toronto and other big cities (recently, four Caribbeans went on a stabbing spree in Calgary, killing one and injuring four others). We don’t need this kind of crap in Canada. We have enough problems of our own.

  15. Solution is simple; fire the Judge (probably a Liberal patronage appointee) and toughen up the justice and immigration systems.
    Scum like this no matter where they are from, must be deported immediately…..or else sent to huge prisons in the Arctic where these wastrels can be housed indefinitely!
    Enough of this politically correct, touchy feely, do-gooder crap that I end up paying for!

  16. A’dam said:
    “Actually, you missed my point, which is that structural issues exist everywhere — in Jamaica, in Canada, in the past and in the present. They differ to some extent depending on the context, but there are also more universal structural issues such as economic barriers, imbalances in political and social power, status hierarchies, and the like. And there’s no doubt that Jamaicans face multiple forms of discrimination in Canada.”
    No A’dam the Jamican community cannot rely on the unlimited goodwill nor on the unlimited patience of the Canadian public. It is their responsibility to fix their culture. It is not my responsiblity to foot the bill for the Jamaican communities failings. Stop inventing bogeymen A’dam and please stop quoting from left wing social worker 101, it really is tiresome. From family & personal responsibilty rises community responsibilty.
    A’dam said:
    “That’s the difference between us (but do correct me if I’m wrong). You speak about high crime rates and family dysfunction, along with lack of initiative and denial of personal responsibility, as though they’re inherent and inseparable characteristics of “Jamaican culture.”
    I do and they are and you know the reasons I have provided. Jamaican culture is dysfunctional, it may change A’dam – we can hope. To state otherwise would be a falsehood. As for personal initiative, I have made no such reference, do not put words in my mouth. The difference between us is that I speak in a forthright manner, without the need to fall back PC pieties;)
    Do you not hold this view? That, on balance, “Canadian culture” is somehow superior to “Jamaican culture”?
    Not on balance A’dam, but in near totality, based on the degree of havoc wrought by familial dysfunction within the Jamaican community.

  17. Some cultures are superior to that hillbilly, rural, redneck culture that produced the illiterate Kate McMillan or Kathy Shaidle’s pederastic Catholic culture that gives us many more failed human beings than poor little Jamaica ever could.
    Which cultures would those be? Discuss. And don’t you leftists go all “politically correct on me.” Kate hates that.

  18. Some cultures are superior to that hillbilly, rural, redneck culture that produced the illiterate Kate McMillan or Kathy Shaidle’s pederastic Catholic culture that gives us many more failed human beings than poor little Jamaica ever could.
    Which cultures would those be? Discuss. And don’t you leftists go all “politically correct on me.” Kate hates that.

  20. There is only one answer to these hateful comments:
    I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
    I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”
    I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
    I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
    I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
    I have a dream today.
    I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
    I have a dream today.

  21. A’dam said:
    “Actually, you missed my point, which is that structural issues exist everywhere …
    I would immediately stop reading anything containing the phrase in bold. It’s empty bureauspeak. Saves a lot of time. Same for “systemic”, et al. And people who use these phrases are a’utomatons talking by rote. Without exception. The end.

  22. You are right MND which is why I asked him to stop quoting from “Left Wing Social Worker 101”. Meaningless tripe of that nature is at its worst simply a PC face saving attempt to shift responsibility or more accurately shift blame, at its least toxic it is an attempt to obscure an argument and shift the goal posts.

  23. I thought this thread would have died by now, so haven’t checked in a while.
    A’dam, you’re just lost, buddy. You seem to think that the world will be a better place if people are afraid to speak their mind.
    I said what I believe…that it is impolite to discuss some things in public. If it were discussed in public, what you suggest would happen might happen…true enough. So, I guess you think that might is right, eh? The sword is truly mightier than the pen, eh?
    Be careful, A’dam…if you talk in PC-code in front of a bunch of freedom-loving “rednecks”, they may make fun of you! Grow yourself some manhood, Mr. Plain Vanilla.
    Your motto must be “I have no opinion about anything or anyone lest someone hurts me”…or how about “Be thee cowed in submission to fear”.
    I can’t say it any plainer than this…I would hold nothing against Jamaicans if they weren’t responsible for the majority of the violent crimes in Toronto. Reduce their violent tendencies down to match that of the general public and I would think of them just like I do anybody else.

  24. Sorry, I forgot one thing…in your scenario, I wouldn’t be AFRAID of physical attack as a result of my verbally degrading a bunch of Liberals…I’d be afraid of the Liberal’s mommies and daddies coming to slap me, or their surrogate parents (the “State”) putting me in jail for “hurting their poor widdle feewings”.
    And, statistically-speaking, Jamaicans would be more likely to shoot me anyway, not punch me in the nose, so there’d be no pain from chastising them either. Kidding!! But I forget…unless I’m black, I can’t joke about blacks…those are the “rules” of PC-ness, don’t ya know.
    Say what you want now, A’dam…I’m done with this tripe.

  25. Nice antidotes to the tripe, as Eeyore says, on this thread have lately come from Eeyore, bcf, MND, Keesha and Werner Patels. Merci.
    And I apologize for my last, somewhat long-winded post. I should just have said, “There’s no reason to change because I’m not the problem.”
    Have a good day, all of you!

  26. lookout: I should just have said, “There’s no reason to change because I’m not the problem.”
    Ironically enough, that’s also precisely what you accuse the Jamaican community of thinking.

  28. There are opinions and there are FACTS. FACT: I’m not the problem being discussed on this thread.
    As a society, the inability to discern between facts and opinions has and is causing serious problems. Idiots, with their heads in either the clouds or the sand, believe that their small-minded opinions, based on nothing but thin air, are owed equal weight with verifiable fact.
    This sophistry isn’t going to take us anywhere good. And, unfortunately, such practioners as Avi Lewis and certain posters at SDA don’t have either the discernment or humility to recognize their poverty of thought. Too bad for all of us.

  29. lookout: FACT: I’m not the problem being discussed on this thread.
    So it’s now a fact that you’re not the problem, and have no need to change your attitudes or views in any way? Are you certain of that? How certain? Would you be willing to admit to, say, your priest or your boss that you believe that “not all cultures are equal”? That “some do reasonably well at turning out responsible, well-adjusted children [while] others [i.e., Jamaican] do not”?
    My bet, lookout, is that you feel free to espouse these opinions and “facts” here ONLY because the internet offers you the safety of anonymity. But were that lack of accountability to be stripped away, would you still be so willing to stand by your words? I highly doubt it.

  30. A’dam please, and for the last time, there is no crime in stating that Jamaican culture is dysfuntional and citing familial dysfunction as the evidense to back that up. Some cultures are superior to others, not all cultures are equal, sorry to burst your fragile PC worldview. Your vacuous & repeated attempts to label anyone who expresses an opinion contrary to your own with the false and empty label of racism is pure PC bullying. You are attempting to stifle debate but it just ain’t gonna work here.

  32. 80 years ago Ruthinians were considered the scouge of god. And they were white. We are all immigrants or decend from the same. We need to be tolerant that’s what makes Canada a great country.

  33. Response to ok4ua:
    What makes Canada a great country today,
    was the immigration that founded and built a free nation of laws and a social support for their descendants. A nation built from nothing but raw land without a guarantee of anything at all, then later fought and defended to the death. The founders offer was and is still open to all other peoples that wish to help support and improve on the countries hard earned existence. It was never intended to be used as a free meal and political toilet for the masses of “immigrants” tired of their own miserable existence in countries that they couldn’t be bothered to fight and fix for themselves. Much easier to parasite an existing economy filled with a dozy PC populous most of whom are embarrassed by their unique and precious inheritance (encouraged to feel that way).
    So called minority groups, and “affirmative action” type committees prey on the weak PC individuals, they themselves making up what we can and cannot say in this free nation as they find obstacles to their own agendas. “Tolerance” is usually one of the first slogans slung as if somehow Canadians need to accept the violence, crime, and abuse of our social systems as simply a “cultural normality” by most of these freeloading criminals.
    Tolerance meaning broadminded is indeed good for all nations, misplaced PC “tolerance” meaning lenience and charity for the worlds scum; is the ruin of all that still remains of Canada “The Great Country” and should not be accepted.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation