Ever heard of Bensonhurst, New York? It's a largely Italian neighborhood in the suburbs. A kid -- a Black kid -- named Yusuf Hawkins was walking through Bensonhurst one night with some friends. He was checking out a used car that was for sale. Some idiots were upset that one of their girlfriends had invited some black people to her birthday party. They thought that Hawkins and his friends were on their way to the party. In no time, about 30 folks swarmed Hawkins and his friends, and beat them with baseball bats. Hawkins was killed.

I know that this might be a totally naive question, but has something like that happened in Canada in recent memory? Someone being killed for being black (or brown or yellow) in a white neighborhood?

ETA - I'm not trying to shed a bad light on Italians or residents of New York. I told this story just to relate a point.

I've never heard of anyone being shot/stabbed because they were in the "wrong" neighbourhood, other than in areas that are known to be prone to violence. However, people do talk. When a friend of mine and his family first joined a prominant social club in Toronto, they received stares from older members because they're Asian. I'm sure older members "talked" about the Asian family that joined that club. They probably don't talk as much anymore, since there are now more Asian members, but many are still surprised if a minority says that he/she is a member.

hahahaha!!!

My riding, Parkdale-High Park, had the most votes for a green candidate in the last election (which was the provincial election).

I actually like the Green Party platform. But they'll start getting bigger and winning some seats eventually and then they'll end up like the NDP, Liberals and Conservatives.

I dont think Canadians being annoyed with Harper for wanting to be like the U.S is being to "liberal".

Canadians want to have their own identity and we are so overwhelmed by the U.S (and we are...whatever they do does affect us), so by moving away and disagreeing with the U.S and their policies is our way of saying, "Hey, we're are own Country and we'll do it our way". That's not being liberal at all.

I know what you're saying about Canadians becoming too "liberal", but I disagree. I think that's what makes this country great! In some respectsI do think we're to liberal with a few of our social programs and spending, which is why I don't think the either of the three major parties can fix it. The Conservatives spend too little and the Liberals and NDP spend too much.

I agree and disagree with this.
I do agree that Canadians are somewhat segregated. There are neighbourhoods that are predominantly Chinese, or Jewish, or Italian, etc, etc, etc.
However, when I go to these neighbourhoods I never feel like I don't belong or people are giving me strange looks, or people are rude to me. They are just as friendly and welcoming to me as they are to "their own".

But the "hey, let's legalize gay marriage" certainly is what I call "socially liberal" and certainly and most definitely why many people, especially newer Canadians are a little upset. The further Canada removes itself from good old family/traditional values, the more upset immigrant parents are going to be with their Canadianized children.

Well I being socially liberal myself, I strongly disagree with you on this issue.
If immigrants have issues with Canada's social policies, then maybe they shouldn't move her. I don't want to sound mean and ignorant, and I am certainly not saying "let's refuse entrance to all immigrants", but this is what Canada is. We're socially liberal. For the most part have always been.
Gay "marriage" is not a problem for me. It's semantics really. You don't have to call it marriage if you don't want to. My biggest problem is people saying that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to spend the rest of their lives with the partner they love and cherish and that they shouldn't get the same rights and freedoms as the heterosexual population of Canada.
Fine, don't call it marriage. I doubt that they would care, to to deny homosexuals the same rights that you or I have is down right wrong and I personally won't ever elect anyone who ever says that it is.

It just bothers me that we have danced more and more towards the left in these past few years, that's all. I am worried that soon, all provinces will adopt the law they have in Quebec where one cannot change their last name, meaning that a married woman will have no choice but to keep her maiden name, even if she hates it! (but that is a whole other topic, to be found in the relationships folder) Sometimes I think Canadians just need some good polish and a boost to the right of centre.

I think being centre is good. We need to be socially liberal (after all if we weren't we wouldn't have the social programs that we rely on) and fiscally conservative (we can still have social programs with out spending too much...which means no more 12% raises for MPs, for example...which is also why I like the Green Party platform on healthcare. Stop spending money on treaments that we don't nee, ie. people running to the doctor for every sniffle, and start spending on preventative medicine... It's not just about the environment.)
I think in some respects we might have gone too far left, but I'll be damned if we go too far right and they start taking away my right to choose.

Don't think that's going to happen, because there'll be enough MPs to vote the bill down.

Some great reading for all:

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/analys...spincycle.html


I have to say I've read three of the columns are they are great. If only we could get everyone to read them and increase their media (and spin) awareness.

Quote from the today's column: {discussing how the opposition would take the long-winded truth}

Isn't that more of a right wing move? Quashing someone's right to choose? The more left you go the more your right to choose and the furthur right you go, the less your right to choose.

This is more of a rhetorical question as I studied political science (with a focus in Canadian politics).

ETA: ofcourse, once you go to far left, then you loose your right to choose, because of the political spectrum - eventually far left will join up with far right. Personally I like the Canadian government centre or just right of centre.

But aren't many feminists left-winged? I think forcing a woman to keep her maiden name is sort of forcing stereotypical women's rights onto the most old school of women. I'd rather have it the other way.

I personally think that is a misconception, as I know many feminists that would be classified as right-wing too... feminism is all about empowerment and equality, which can be achieved now by both right or left philosphies.

But are they really "right wing"? Not according to those who believe in more traditional values.

Not all feminists are "feminazis: out to kill all fetuses" (as Rush Limbaugh would say).
So women who have more tradition values do consider themselves feminists, because they had the ability to choose.

That's right, they CONSIDER THEMSELVES FEMINISTS. However, there are also women who think that they're not feminists because of their traditional views. If a woman chooses to keep her baby regardless of what the risk to her and/or to the baby is, these feminists would probably think of her as "dumb".

But that's what RACooper was talking about. The women he knows were right-winged AND feminist.
There are many woman who don't consider themselves feminist (Myself included), but there are different types/degrees on feminism, that pretty much any woman can be considered a feminist.

So we should judge the entire women's movement based off of the most extreme members?

It was an example. Besides, most "women's study experts" would probably consider pro-life women "off" or "odd" or even "dumb". I'm sick of hearing these ladies say that "Canadian women don't do this" because many do and are pro-life, even young women. It sucks to be an "old fashioned girl" these days.

No offense, but I could give a hot d*mn about what other people think about me when I know what's in my own heart. If someone is dissuaded by the opinions of some of the more strident members of a particular political group, then their convictions weren't that strong to begin with.

Ah.. but that would be the Feminazi view... the feminists that I know support the pro-life view because they value the life of the fetus as much as they value their own. The difference really comes down to when one considers the fetus an individual life-form (and not a parasite as I have heard some refer to it as).

A person's politcal leanings can not be easily pegged based on one issue... plenty of "left-wingers" support pro-life or the military or other "conservative" hot topics, and the reverse is true as well.

OK...off topic...anyone in the Toronto area think that The Star is obsessed with Jack and Olivia? There have been quite a few articles on them as of late.

ETA: If there are so many versions of feminism, then why is it that university women's studies departments tend to be filled with people who are more along the lines of "feminazi" (which is a term that I was told not to use in high school)? I usually got the cold "that's nice, dear" kind of comment from professors from that department or from courses that tend to be more "feminist" in view. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I don't know.. perhaps because they are the most "commited" they are the ones that are willing to apply themselves to become a professor.... but then again it could simply be an educational trend, much like Marxist interpretations of History (judging everything as a product of class struggle :rolleyes: ) or the re-interpretation of historical personages with our modern perceptions of sexual diversity? Who really knows...

I think the reason the Star is focusing on Jack and Olivia is because of their past visibilty in Toronto politics, they are familar to the writers and they have a lot of background material to work with.

Did anyone watch the debates? What did you think?

I watch a bit of the English Language debate. I thought Martin came off best. Harper needs to learn to look at the camera more directly (it makes him look shady when he adverts his eyes to much)... and for goodness say, Jack Layton needs to learn to not talk over people so much!!

I think they all need to learn not to talk over people!

I watched bits of the debate.

is it me, or is Gilles Duceppe the worst public speaker ever?!

Well, English isn't his first/best language. I think he tried his best.

No that's not it. I didn't have a problem with his English. I thought it was fine. I couldn't understand everything he said. But he's so monotonous, and he never had an opinion of his own. I found him to be a bit flakey.

I watched both.. mainly because themes from the French debate would carry over into the English debate...

I found that the leaders could have, and should have, hammered Harper more on his foreign policy and domestic policy views... I mean come on, the guy said that he would "in very select instances" ignore rulings of the supreme court about abortion or same-sex marriages... or they could have roasted him on his letters to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or the Washington Post apologizing for Canada's "cowardice" about not going to Iraq with the US. Instead they sniped amongst themselves when not attacking Martin...

From one of The Colonists, Canadian Polotics and voting is just about as hard to understand on both sides of the Border a peice of land that says oh oh, new country!

What say, if you speak French, you so start a New Country?

What trade do you have?

What say the South rises up against the North?

What does that gain.

In reading a book lately, yes, I do read that the European Commonwealth becomes self dependent, or say all of the Asian countrys, what would be wrong with an North American Common Wealth of Canada, Mexico and the USA!

Our Continent against your Continent, or is that cald NAFTA!

Coop, Brother, I wish We Could get together over a Flaggin of BOOZE!


Up The British!:D

Did anyone else get headache from watching last night's debate - I swear, no one could get a word in. Unfortunately I thought Harper was by far the most eloquent and charismatic speaker.

I think it had something to do with the fact that there was four people each debating their own platform... when there is just two sides it's easier to control a debate, but with four....

They should work on developing a new format to allow for many party representatives (espically if Green gets 'official' status).

I think they should allow all party leaders to speak whether they have party status or not. Obviously, it will be more difficult to have a coherent debate, but they can work on that.

Ummm...then the debate could take twice as long!

Personally I can see why they would want to limit the debate to federally recognized parties (which requires I think 2% of the vote?) in order to limit the scope of the debate... for example I think there was close to 17 parties running in the riding I lived in while stationed in Ottawa two elections ago.

I think a change in format to where each of the participants was forced to follow the rules of debate would be nice... and avoid the constant interruptions and chatter...

I agree with Cooper. THough it would be funny to have all the leaders there...

Marxist-Lenist anyone?

Yeah but how can you call us a free and deocratic society when not everyone gets the chance to speak because it takes "tooo long"?

These debates don't have to be done in one night. That's why I said they can work on it. Obviously things would have to be changed to accomidate everyone. And maybe some parties won't want to speak, but they ALL should be given the right to have their say on national television.

Ha, this does remind me of one time. There was a Marxis-Lenist candidate on the Rogers cable access channel one election and she was sooooooooooooooooooooo boring I though I was going to poke my eyes out.
She spoke in a monotone and read from a piece of paper and didn't once look up at the camera.
Well no wonder you don't win! You bore all your voters to death!

What's the point if they only have 5 candidates in a riding in one region of the country? It's not like the BQ, who have candidates in every riding in Quebec.