Jonathan Kay;

The reason multiculturalism now seems like such a fraud is that experience has taught us that old-school racism has nothing on the sort of hatreds brought into this country by the immigrants themselves: hatred toward homosexuals, toward heretics, toward “loose” women and, most importantly, toward each other.
It’s hard to get too riled up about Don Imus or alleged “racial profiling” by cops, for instance, when I see Canada becoming home to African blacks who have been charged with murdering other blacks by the villageful for the crime of belonging to the wrong tribe. Ditto when I watch Canadian Sikhs who are so proud that one of their coreligionists murdered another group of South Asian Canadians that they hold a parade partly in his honour. And then there’s the Liberal candidate in Edmonton- Mill Woods-Beaumont, who will have to explain to his constituents what he meant with his attacks on Israel, India and France.

I have advice for my friend Andrew Coyne – “Never equate the obvious with the unlikely”.
In other words – sometimes he thinks too much;

Barack Obama’s campaign for president has barely begun, and already the questions are mounting. Is he experienced enough? Is he tough enough? And, bizarrely, is he black enough?
[…]
It’s a pointless debate, by and large: black voters, for whose benefit the arguments for and aganst Mr. Obama’s blackness are supposedly being advanced, will decide for themselves whether and on what terms they will support him. Still, it’s fascinating that the issue should have arisen, and if it is pointless, it’s useful to know why it’s pointless. One of the things Mr. Obama’s candidacy may achieve is to confirm, not the irrelevance of race as a political issue, but the incoherence of it — the maddening, irresolvable undefinability of it.

“It’s fascinating that the issue should have arisen”…. Really?
The Obama campaign is running on melanin because it can’t run on track record.
Having elevated a biomolecule to the status of “political virtue”, what other outcome is possible, than to provoke debate about whether it is present in sufficient purity and quantity?

CJunk;

A reading of the ruling, in its entirety, and knowledge of the facts as they unfolded in Saskatchewan is needed in order to see through the dangerous precedent set by Justice Smith. He ignored completely the possibility of a conspiracy to defraud the father of his child, yet claimed with much flourish that because the father had not been with the child, the child could not, should not, and would not, bond to him. Yet, everyone in Saskatchewan knows that the father did all he could to gain access to, and reclaim his son … whom the mother did not want.
Welcome to Saskatchewan. Welcome to Indian politics. Welcome to the cesspool of Sask. government departments seeded so heavily with the “progressive” class that they can conspire and triumph wherever, and however, they want where race politics are involved.

While there are legitimate arguments about the “best interests of the child” in this case, ruling that the biological father be deprived of visitation rights for the next year seems especially mean-spirited — not to mention illogical.

“My concern is Ian could have immense difficulty, particularly in the early stages of his development, in reconciling all the complicated adult relationships in his life.”

What then to make of visits from those constituting other “complicated adult relationships”, like the biological mother, grandparents and other maternal and custodial family relatives? Some villages are more equal than others, I guess.
Less than a month ago an Ontario court issued a ruling that named three people as parents of a single child. One wonders if “Adam” might have received a better outcome had he presented himself to the court as a gay man.
There’s a link to the ruling here.

Racial preferences that favour visible minorities are “progressive”. When they encourage whites, they’re a “stunt”;

All the media attention is focused on a $250 Caucasian Achievement and Recognition Scholarship offered by Mroszczyk and the BU chapter of the College Republicans. Applicants must have a cumulative grade point average of 3.2 or higher; they must write two essays; and, here’s the kicker, they must be at least one-quarter Caucasian.

The reaction is proving their point.

Ensuring that history properly recognizes the contributions made by disabled lesbian lumberjacks of colour;

As part of a “rebranding” exercise, Vancouver City Council is scheduled to consider today a report on the many “challenges” associated with the continued use by the municipality of its coat of arms as the city’s main visual identity. But in truth, there is really only one challenge facing Vancouver’s politicians: How do they get rid of whitey?
The report, by Vancouver’s communications director Catherine Clement, argues that the municipality’s existing coat of arms “does not help humanize the organization” and “does not reflect the progressive organization the city has become.” Rather, the report argues, it “undermines the image of an innovative government.”
Those are very serious allegations to hurl at a coat of arms that has graced bridges, city hall and municipal documents for more than a century without incident. So what is it about the coat of arms that is suddenly harming the image of Vancouver’s “innovative government”?
After making the case that a truly effective identity for the City of Vancouver would communicate to residents “the myriad services they receive from their local government, and improve awareness of the value they get for their tax dollars,” the report finally gets to the point. According to Ms. Clement, “the present coat of arms uses two Caucasian, male ‘supporters,’ when other cultural groups also played a significant role in the development of Vancouver.”

In googling around on the Keeseekoose story, I ran across this oddly presented quote in the Star Pheonix on Oct.28.

And while hundreds of people are being flown out of a remote northern Ontario First Nation because of an E. coli outbreak in the water, Health Canada says six Saskatchewan reserves are under a boil water advisory. Segments of the Peepeekisis, Standing Buffalo, Poundmaker, Sweetgrass, Keeseekoose and Cumberland House First Nations are under the advisory, but don’t have E. coli contamination.
“I think if anything, the Native situation in Saskatchewan is better than the (Caucasian) situation,” said Hans Peterson, executive director of the Safe Drinking Water Foundation.

Emphasis mine.
Notice the parenthesis around the word “Caucasian” – in a quote, no less.
Why? Did Hans Peterson skip a word? Or did the writers – Janet French, Julie Saccone and Dan Jungwirth – decide to use “Caucasian” in place of something else?
Could it be that “white” has joined the growing list of words considered too politically incorrect to grace the pages of our fair paper, even for use in a direct quote?
I’d love to hear an explanation.