Slimey underhand behaviour from Dosanjh? I'm shocked .......

Posted by: Dave at July 27, 2006 11:28 AM

---

No, it's not so surprising that Dosanjh would try to get another MP to do this, rather than doing it himself.

Remember that Dosanjh is the highest ranking federal Liberal in B.C. (Hedley Fry doesn't quite have the rank), and as such would command a sizeable delegation at the upcoming leadership convention. His bargaining power would dry up if people learned he tried to get his assailant out of the country, so he can't afford to get tied up in scandal, whereas an ignorant backbencher would suffer far less damage.

Posted by: PhantomObserver at July 27, 2006 11:41 AM

---

Well, if you're a known terrorist, why wouldn't you go to a Liberal for help? It's well known that they're the most terrorist friendly party in Canada. Makes sense, since his MP is Nina Grewal... a member of the most anti-terrorist party in Canada.

Posted by: Christian Conservative at July 27, 2006 11:45 AM

---

Just when you thought you heard it all this comes up. The Liberals are crooked corrupted to the core and always will be. In the end I thank Mr. Dosanjh for keeping my opinion of the Liberals sliding through the gutter. Keep it up buddy.

Posted by: wuberman at July 27, 2006 11:54 AM

---

I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you to hear that a Dipper turncoat/Librano party hack would do such a thing!

The real question is why is Dosanjh doing this at all? What does Atwal have on him?

Posted by: Backseat at July 27, 2006 12:04 PM

---

As it turns out, Mr. Atwal appears equally at ease in turning to the Conservative Party for help, and at least one party member appears equally at ease in giving it. According to this second article, also by intrepid CanWest reporter Kim Bolan, Mr. Gurmant Grewal, while serving as MP in 2002, wrote a letter of recommendation that evidently helped Mr. Atwal secure full parole.

Balwant Singh Gill, president of Surrey's Guru Nanak temple, whom you recall was earlier "shocked that the Liberals would be trying to intervene on behalf of Atwal," now asks, "Why is [Mr. Grewal] writing this letter?" I suspect that the answer might be, "For the same reasons Mr. Dosanjh rang up Mr. Bell for a favour: it's just what politicians do, regardless of their political stripe."

Posted by: A at July 27, 2006 12:21 PM

---

I like Dosanjh claiming ignorance of Atwal's history. That's like putting up a big sign over your head that says,

"If you are a murderer/assassin and you want to go to a country you are not allowed into, come to me because I won't even bother looking into your past."

I'm sorry, but bad enough being caught trying to help a murderer get into a country he is banned from, but to then admit that you never bothered to do your job and look into WHY this guy isn't allowed into India?

Gotta love these Liberals... they seem to think that being derelict in your duties is something to take pride in!

Posted by: Surecure at July 27, 2006 12:22 PM

---

Screw the exit visa - let's go directly to a deportation order.

Posted by: Dagny Taggart at July 27, 2006 12:33 PM

---

The brush is broad enough that I wouldn't put all the culpability on the Liberals. The Grewals' involvement, although not as incriminating, is suspicious. This looks to be more like Indian politics entering the Canadian realm. I hate to say it, but I think voters should look closely before electing any politician with close ties to India.

Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2006 01:14 PM

---

Careful Ben... some lefty is bound to take that comment as being indicative that we shouldn't elect East Indians and that it is some kind of proof of the right being racist. Not that your statement says that in any way.

Posted by: Surecure at July 27, 2006 01:51 PM

---

Ben,
Maybe that should be "any Vancouver-based politician with close ties..."?

Posted by: Another Sean at July 27, 2006 01:56 PM

---

dual citizens sbould not be in government

Posted by: george at July 27, 2006 02:37 PM

---

To hold any public office...from municipal all the way up to federal...
You should have been born here in Canada
..AND..
show proof of at least 18 years of residency.

Otherwise,.. run for office in your own/old country.
We have too many politicians from other countries, who have brought their ancient battles to Canada.
Unless you were born here and grew up with a Canadian education, you can't possibly understand what it means to be Canadian...!

Ok...start the howling.!

Posted by: William at July 27, 2006 03:07 PM

---

Who"s surprised? Ujjal Dosey, the sly rather stunned looking guy? Looks like he's up to something? Well be sure he is, it's the Liberal way and looks like he made the perfect transition from his other life as an NDPer, no cultural shock there. The Conservative involvement is probably due to aiding the specific "community" involved. The Grewals have been having difficulty , probably a lot of pressures from the ethnic component of their riding. No doubt the media will focus on Nina Grewal if there is a story.

Posted by: Liz J at July 27, 2006 03:36 PM

---

Surecure, I am aware of how my comments could be taken. And let me say that I have no doubt that an east Indian politician can perform his/her duties competently and circumspectly (i.e. without corruption) just as anyone else can. Furthermore, and I am for Canadians of all racial stripes to be involved in politics.

I'm just pointing out a pattern that seems to be emerging with east Indian politicians bringing baggage associated with how politics are done in their country of origin. The bizarre shenanigans outlined in this post are just one case in point, and it does not just happen in Vancouver.

Perhaps William has a point. Notice that there is nothing racist about his restrictions--the rules would apply to all races equally.

The current situation actually leads to low-level racism. I am sure I'm not the only one to see the pattern I just mentioned, and many voters will do some form of "racial profiling" to see who their candidate is beholden to.

Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2006 03:57 PM

---

ROTFLMAO

This is one of the funniest things I have read....not because I think it false but because the entire folly is so likely to be true.

Nice find, brightened my day.

Of course UD's chances of being PM, which are still alive in his own mind, are so far from likely now. Give him more time, I am sure there is something else that is sordid.

Man oh man, helping the guy who beat you over the head with an iron bar.....that on its own is proof of stupidity.

Posted by: Stephen at July 27, 2006 04:16 PM

---

Oh, I absolutely understand Ben... I was just kind of heading the lefties off at the track as it were. :-D

Posted by: Surecure at July 27, 2006 04:21 PM

---

Leaving Town?

As you may be aware. Hezbollah continues to raise money here in Canada and the US with seeming impunity.

-ttp://TonyGuitar.blogspot.com

There was an event here in Courtenay recently where ME people took over a Hotel and several businesses. The hotel, café, beer parlour, night club, and beer and liquor store next door were all doing a brisk business, yet just months under the new owners and suddenly everything was closed down and boarded up. With added military payrolls, our economy is vibrant.

Curious thing is that the new owners vanished, or so I am told:
-ttp://BendGovernment.blogspot.com

I wonder if small business groups are being taken over in other Canadian small towns by ME operators and then if new owners are vanishing with all the proceeds and suppliers unpaid.. = TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at July 27, 2006 04:45 PM

---

William,

I think that you would pour a child with a bath water with your approach. Just because these particular guys exhibited a bad judgment or have some hidden skeletons in their closets, it doesn't mean that ALL immigrants to this country should be disqualified from taking a public office. A lot of them are bringing something very valuable to the table and pay taxes just as you do.

I am one of those immigrants, have lived in Canada for almost 17 years and am as far-right in my political convictions as a majority of other people reading this blog. Just because I haven't been born here makes me less worthy a Canadian as you are?

Adam

Posted by: Adam at July 27, 2006 04:49 PM

---

We have learned that beating a Liberal over the head with a pipe does nothing to them, or for them--this is the acid test--Liberal skulls are so thick there is no braincells there at all.
Dosanjh has to be the biggest waste of skin and oxygen. His total defence for every accusation is that "he knows nothing, he sees nothing"--he is still stuck in the Laugh-In age. He missed his calling--he is a comedian--albeit in black humour--
Sadly, Ben is right in the Dosanjh behaviour. Another multiculti gift we have from the Liberals--bring your wars to Canada and we will support you! No one should be surprised that Dosanjh et al are just an extension of politics East Indian style.

Posted by: George at July 27, 2006 05:42 PM

---

Liz J: Are you so blindly partisan that even when two politicians--one Liberal, one Conservative--are both exposed at the same time as having used their positions of power to provide assistance to a convicted criminal, that you can still find rationalizations to condemn the former and excuse the latter? Seriously, are you truly not aware of your own hypocrisies, or are you aware but merely unwilling to admit that, sometimes, even Conservative Party members can behave badly?

Ben, George: I'm unfamiliar with this concept of "politics East Indian style." Care to enlighten me on the details of this style of politics?

Also, can anyone provide me with a definition of racism? Because I always thought it meant something like 'discrimination or prejudice based on the assumption that a person's abilities, behaviours, values, and other components of their essential character are determined by his or her racial and/or ethnic membership, and that stereotypes associated with that racial/ethnic group can therefore be applied reliably to that person.'
Like when people claim that Mr. Dosanjh's bad behaviour (and do I need to emphasize that I am not defending his recent actions in any way?) must have something to do with his being of Indian descent, so much so that he apparently possesses an East Indian style of politics (whatever that means) or that he brings 'baggage associated with how politics are done in their country of origin' (even though Mr. Dosanjh left India at 17 to study in England, and has lived in Canada for almost 40 years, and served in the Canadian public service for the past 15). But apparently, that's not what racism is, or as Surecure would have it, that's what racism is only if you're a 'lefty.'

Posted by: A at July 27, 2006 07:05 PM

---

No Name: Don't know why your dwelling so much on ethnicity. People involved in specific activities of the covert, shady variety, can and do come from any race. We are talking politics in this case. People in the riding expect their reps to help them with a variety of things. Just because a politician is of a particular race doesn't exempt him/her from honesty and decency. In this case Ujjal Dosanjh is a very experienced politician,Nina Grewal less so, let's wait for more facts. It's great you have an outlet for your rants on racism, hypocracies, etc. It's better than a soap box, it's anonymous, no name required. What could be better? Enjoy.

Posted by: Liz J at July 27, 2006 08:19 PM

---

Ben, the comment regarding East Indians might be stated better as: beware voting for those who have offshore political entanglements that could interfere with or harm Canada. A truly free press would help uncover and illuminate such entanglements for the benefit of the entire electorate. Since this is something we more or less lack in Canada, we're fortunate that excellent blogs such as this one are available.

Posted by: Shaken at July 27, 2006 08:36 PM

---

Liz, never once in my posts did I try to exempt Mr. Dosanjh from honesty and decency, due to his race or anything else. I'm no fan of his, and I think he was caught red-handed, no excuses. In fact, in my first post, I tried to point out that BOTH Mr. Dosanjh and Mr. Grewal are equally were equally guilty of pulling political strings. BTW, that Nina Grewal is relatively inexperienced politically is beside the point. It's her husband, who has sufficient experience at the federal level to know better, who has committed the same political faux pas as Mr. Dosanjh. If you condemn one, you must by your own standards condemn the other.

In my second post, I dwelled on race because posters like Ben & George insist on referring to Mr. Dosanjh's race & ethnic background in condemning his actions. I believe this is a form of racism, and stated as much. If it is indeed the case that "people involved in specific activities of the covert, shady variety, can and do come from any race" (and I agree with you that it is), then there should be no reason for Ben or George to bring up race in the first place. I agree wholeheartedly with Shaken's suggested wording: "beware voting for those who have offshore political entanglements that could interfere with or harm Canada" (in contrast to "voters should look closely before electing any politician with close ties to India"). You will note that this makes no reference to race/ethnicity, and thus quite easily sidesteps any accusations of racism.

Insofar as my second (and now my third) posting is a "rant", it's because others on this blog rarely opt to engage me (or anyone else, for that matter) in an actual dialogue about politics, race and racism, security and terrorism, and whatever other topic Steve considers worthy of blogging. I would much prefer an honest and open-minded discussion, but this is contingent on people not hurling out casually racist or otherwise inflamatory remarks.

By the way, I had stopped listing my email in these blogs not because I prefer my soapboxes to be anonymous, but because it seems some person(s) who disagreed with one of my comments on an earlier thread decided it would be funny or just desserts to subscribe my email address to a third-party website's spam newsletter without my authorization.

Posted by: A at July 27, 2006 09:53 PM

---

Ujjal had a house he owned and rented out busted for a grow-op. Funny how you do not hear that bandied about.
East Indian style politics in BC is all about mass sign ups. Organized at the temples, they very much have the political bosses of old. It is about East Indian voters and not about anyone else. Ethnic and religious problems are brought over from the old country.
How much time Ujall has spent out of India is irrelevant because he very much is tied to India for his base. In his village he is hailed as a great man and went on a victory tour to India during his tenure as BC premier.
I think it is time to debate immigrants role in Canadian politics. When I see a man with conficting allegiances such as Ujall as the defense critic, it drives me crazy.
Why not restrictions on immigrants participation in politics? Single citizenships perhaps at the federal level? A PM of Canada must be a Canadian citizen only. One allegiance to one country.
enough

Posted by: enough at July 28, 2006 12:09 AM

---

A, I knew (like Surecure) that my comments would get me in trouble. Am I a racist? I certainly don't advocate prejudging a person based on skin colour. And, using your definition, I don't believe that one's "abilities, behaviours, values, and other components of their essential character are determined by his or her racial and/or ethnic membership". Nor do I believe that "stereotypes associated with that racial/ethnic group can therefore be applied reliably" to judge a person.

However, should we assume that one's conditioning, background, and (perhaps most of all) connections have no effect on one's decision-making?

Unfortunately, what little I know about East Indian politics leads me to believe that it is indeed based on race and ethnicity (not to mention religion), and one is expected to toe the line of the group to which you belong. Certainly, "East Indian politics" is a lot more violent than I would like, as Mr. Dosanjh's "friend" illustrates. How many cabinet ministers in Canadian politics have been shot at lately (let's not bring up beatings for the time being)? How about one who gets shot at once, survives, and then killed a few years later? Call me old-fashioned, but there are some political "values" I would prefer not to import.

I have no problem voting for a candidate of any colour or ethnic group, but (as this sordid story illustrates) one had better not overlook ethnic connections because they're likely to play a part when the candidate is elected.

Posted by: Ben at July 28, 2006 12:17 AM

---

Truth IS stranger than fiction. I was wondering what this guy could have on Dosanjh to get him to agree to help him, but now I'm wondering if maybe Ujjal is using him? He had a dirty deed that needed doing, and knew just the guy to go to?

Posted by: Cheri at July 28, 2006 12:24 AM

---

I linked to your story

Posted by: Winston at July 28, 2006 12:58 AM

---

Fair enough, Ben. I realized from your 2nd post that you weren't some lunatic anti-immigration racist (the way 'Enough' appears to be -- "Why not restrictions on immigrants participation in politics?"(!!!)).

And I agree that "one's conditioning, background, and (perhaps most of all) connections" DO have an effect on actions and decision-making. I just wonder whether this episode is about East Indian politicians and their ethnic ties, or just politicians being corrupt and unprincipled. That is, conditioning, backgrounds, and connections are multidimensional concepts not limited to ethnicity. Dosanjh has an Indian background, but he also has a middle-class background, for example. He is also conditioned as being "male," and as a British Columbian. He has connections with the East Indian community (this being Vancouver, every politician has connections with the Indian community), but he also has connections with, say, the B.C. lawyers' society. My point is, it's very easy--especially in this case, when the three central players are of the same ethnic background--to focus on that most salient common characteristic between them, and then extrapolate all conclusions based on that apparent "fact." This is dangerous to do, however, because it's never clear that it was their common ethnicity that motivated them.

Insofar as one should "not overlook ethnic connections because they're likely to play a part when the candidate is elected," I think this scrutiny should be limited ONLY, as 'Shaken' notes above, to "offshore political entanglements that could interfere with or harm Canada." It shouldn't be the 'ethnic' part that invites closer investigation, it's the 'connection' part. After all, least we forget, Caucasian is a race/ethnicity like any other. Likewise, Caucasian-dominated American politics is more violent than Canadian (think JFK and others). And Jewish politics likewise (think Yitzak Rabin and others). So should we scrutinize ANY white politician-white constituent (or Jewish-Jewish) relationship, simply because there's an "ethnic" connection there? This notion is ridiculous, so why is it deemed acceptable when it's a visible minority ethnicity in question? I say, instead, that ANY connection--be it ethnic, racial, economic/business-related, religious, familial, personal, etc.--that could potentially harm Canada should be subject to equal scrutinized. That would avoid accusations of discrimination, and also strengthen Canadian politics at the same time.

Posted by: A at July 28, 2006 07:38 AM

---

How very PC of you A.
"lunatic anti-immigration racist" You may disagree but to question is not rascist. Immigration is not the problem. No such thing was proposed as to limiting immigration, typical lefty dissembling. No specific race was targeted. Caucasian is exactly what race? Sounds steriotypical to lump all "white" as a race. The Italians, Spanish, Ukrainian, Polish, Belgians do disagree with you.

What was questioned was limiting the role of immigrants in Canadian politics. Why is it not correct to question this? The US president must have been born in the US. How many on the left would argue against an amendment that allowed Arnold Schwartzeneger to to be President? Would they too be rascist?

Societies inevitably change. How fast or slow this happens can damage these societies. BC changed dramatically in the mid 80's with a large asian immigration. That is fine in itself but ethnic youth gangs flourished, violence between these gangs became a huge issue and it took at least a decade for BC to regain equilibrium. Vancouver still has East Indian gangs fighting Vietnamese and Chinese gangs killing off each other. 20 years ago this was virtually unheard of.

The left way is not to question. Unlimited immigration, throw money at the multicult stuff and ignore any problems. Brand anyone who questions immigration a rascist.

Why does someone come from another culture then feel free to tell everyone else what to do? Why the sense of entitlement? Grewal mass signed up to take over his and his wifes riding. The left did not like that and railed against that. They did not raise a concern when the Liberal or NDP did that.
enough

Posted by: enough at July 28, 2006 09:30 AM

---

To hold any public office...from municipal all the way up to federal...
You should have been born here in Canada
..AND..
show proof of at least 18 years of residency.

Well, then you're saying that a politically involved guy like me can't ever run for office... thanks to that pesky detail of being born in Britian 9 months before I came over here.

Thanks a bunch William. ;-)

Posted by: Christian Conservative at July 28, 2006 10:36 AM

---

We need more immigrants involved in politics.

That does not change the facts regarding how politics are conducted in other countries.

I admire Swiss democracy. I don't admire Indian democracy.

I know Indian politics well. My wife is well enough connected that my father-in-law offered her a job as a MP there. Only in a grossly unfair system is that possible. I won't bore you with all the other considerable political connections.

At its core, Indian politics are about 3 things; identity and winners & losers. People are elected based on race, class, caste, tribe, religion, clan and family. The elected official is then beholden to those groups. If you support a loser, you get nothing. There is no common good. No representing all your constituents. Try that and you won't even get a party nomination.

I want every politician of Indian origin to reject the cultural pull of that type of politics. Neither Dosanjh and Grewal did.

One down. One to go.

Posted by: PlaidShirt at July 28, 2006 11:04 AM

---

No such thing was proposed as to limiting immigration...

No, you merely proposed limiting the Section 3 Charter right of first-generation Canadians (I assume we're talking about those, like Mr. Dosanjh & Mr. and Mrs. Grewal, have since acquired Canadian citizenship) to participate fully in the democratic process, which includes running for political office. That, in my book, is an anti-immigrant and racist position to take.

The US president must have been born in the US. How many on the left would argue against an amendment that allowed Arnold Schwartzeneger to to be President? Would they too be rascist?

First, that's the US, not Canada. Second, "born in the US" applies only to the Presidency, not Congress, the House, governorships, mayoral offices, etc. Third, whether it's discriminatory or not depends on what the arguments are. If it's "People born in Austria can never be fully loyal to the US", then yeah, discriminatory. Fourth, so would you be OK with one of Mr. Dosanjh or Mr. Grewal's Canadian-born children becoming PM one day?

Caucasian is exactly what race? Sounds steriotypical to lump all "white" as a race. The Italians, Spanish, Ukrainian, Polish, Belgians do disagree with you.

First, let me note that 'race' is itself a dubious distinction, with no significant parallels at the biological and genetic levels. However, since it is a real social construct, with real social & political consequences, I will retain its use here. So, first I should clarified my own statement. I meant to say that 'Caucasian' is a race, within which are many Caucasoid ethnicities, such as Italians, Polish, British, etc, rather than just "Caucasian race/ethnicity." In any case, I didn't use "Causasian" to stereotype anyone's behaviour. My point at the time was that some people in this thread appear to support extra scrutiny of East Indian-Canadian politicians because of their ethnic backgrounds. By this logic (and I'll state this with painful specificity), a Canadian politician of Caucasoid race and, say, Irish ethnicity who freely enters into a business/political relationship with a Canadian citizen of Caucasoid race and Irish ethnicity should arouse similar scrutiny over potential collusion based on their ethnic ties or baggage. But this would be ridiculous, right? Like 'Shaken', I propose an alternative approach, which is to not look at ethnicity per se (which is too general), but at the particular details of the connection/relationship to discern whether potential harm to Canada exist (which is specific).

Why does someone come from another culture then feel free to tell everyone else what to do? Why the sense of entitlement?

If they become citizens of Canada, they're as entitled to an equal voice as any other citizen. They may exercise this right through voting and by entering political office, among other options. As free citizens, they should also be entitled to try to tell everyone else what to do, but they have no right to make everyone else do it, and everyone else has an equal right to ignore them. If you wish to acquire the same level of political clout as a Mr./Mrs. Grewal or Mr. Dosanjh, I encourage you to run for office.

Likewise, assuming those who signed up in Grewal and his wife's ridings were Canadian citizens, then how can you have an issue with their support for Grewal? It's the very definition of democracy, for local constituents to come together and elect the member of their community that they believe best represents their interests and needs, whatever those needs happen to be. I hadn't realize the left railed against Grewal mass-signing up people, but even if I had, I certainly wouldn't have been among the protesters.

Posted by: A at July 28, 2006 12:57 PM

---

A,
You can call rascist any act you desire. It does not make it so.

I ask for debate free of shrill cries of rascism. Is it a reasonable question? I think it is. Should it apply to all levels of government? That is up for debate. I am questioning possible limits on immigrants involvement in politics. Not specific ethnic limits. It is the left that likes ethnic divides as shown by native indiana and reservations.

The US was used as an example. Are you limiting our decisions to acts and examples as provided only by Canadians? Venezuela also limits the presidency to native born Venezuelans. Lebanon reserves government positions based on religon. The NDP have sometimes wished to reserve positions by gender.

The charter says they are allowed an equal voice. The charter is a construct of people who did not take a long term view of the results. It IS up to us to debate the charter and modify it as needed. It appears to be a holy document of the Liberals but it was thrust on us relatively recently and Quebec still does not approve it. Typical to shutdown debate when the left wishes to.

East Indian politics in BC is well known for busing in non citizens to riding association meetings and taking over the riding. Slippery way in the back door seeing as these people choosing the candidate are unable to vote in elections.

We have residency requirements for voting, we have age requirements and we used to limit the vote of convicts. Why is this not up for debate without knee jerk accusations of rascism?
enough

Posted by: enough at July 28, 2006 01:52 PM

---

I ask for debate free of shrill cries of rascism...I am questioning possible limits on immigrants involvement in politics.

Fine, I will take you at your word. No more cries of racism.

Why not restrictions on immigrants participation in politics? Single citizenships perhaps at the federal level? A PM of Canada must be a Canadian citizen only. One allegiance to one country.

First, in our Parliamentary system, qualifications for the position of PM are basically the same as qualifications for federal MP, the PM traditionally being whomever is the leader of the party with the most House of Commons seats. The PM's Office isn't even formally acknowledged as a separate entity in the Constitution. So, unless we reform our parliamentary structure as well, any qualification restrictions you might like to see applied to the PM would also be applied to MPs.

So, you call for restrictions on immigrants participation in politics, and also for federal politicians to be single citizenship Canadians only. These are two separate issues, since one can be an immigrant and also a single citizenship Canada, or conversely a dual-citizenship Canadian but not an immigrant.

On the first issue, what specific restrictions on immigrant political participation do you suggest? You need to specify more details before we can debate them.

On the second issue, my main concern is that requiring possession of single citizenship alone will not necessarily improve or guarantee greater allegience to Canada. Requiring the PM to carry only Canadian citizenship while renouncing others (say, British dual citizenship) might be a nice symbolic gesture, but it doesn't offer any actual guarantees that, when push comes to shove, he/she no longer feels any allegience to the UK.

The charter is a construct of people who did not take a long term view of the results. It IS up to us to debate the charter and modify it as needed.

The Charter's formulators very much took a long-term view. In fact, they opted to supercede the Bill of Rights (which is legislation, and hence relatively easy to amend) with the Charter (which is a constitutional document, and hence relatively difficult to amend) precisely because the rights and freedoms enshrined within it were deemed so fundamental to the Canadian way of life that they needed to be protected by constitutional (as opposed to merely statutory) authority. Yes, we should continually review and debate its contents. But as is so with any other constitutional document, modifications should be proposed only with extreme care and diligence. Also note that where the Charter has been amended, it is usually been to add or further protect rights (i.e., s.16.1 & s.25), not restrict them.

Posted by: A at July 28, 2006 03:52 PM

---

Uh, guys, I think it's more of a cultural thing than a race or ethnic thing. And Canada is officially multi-cultural. This has nothing to do with how long someone has been in Canada - but most certainly has to do with Canada being a battleground for some culture's, usually religious, war.

For example, Jaspal Atwal says he has been here 36 years, so I guess he arrived in 1970. In 1987 he made the attempt on the life of India's minister responsible for Punjab, Malkiat Singh Sidhu on Vancouver Island.

Well, this puts him in Canada for over 15 years prior to using Vancouver Island as a cultural battleground. The court's gave him 20 years for that incident and Canada's culture "allowed" him to serve 6 years jail-time. Then allowed visits back to the Punjab - the visa has since been pulled because he did a drive-by shooting of his brother's house.

What's the answer? If religion is involved, double the real-time jail sentence? If it was done in Canada due to for foreign terrorism, make the charge treason to Canada? Require the rest of your parole to be served in some other culture's ghetto? - because the one you were in certainly taught you some bad manners. This is really, really nasty stuff leading to a really slippery slope.

Posted by: lindsay at July 28, 2006 04:22 PM

---

"Oh Lord it's Hard to be Humble When Yor Perfect in Every Way".....any takers? "A" No doubt your a very good person, you mean well, but for god's sake and for the sake of debate, you've gotta get off your obsession with racism, it can be linked to the time of day if you try hard enough. Canada is made up of so many races, some with whom we have a long history with and some a very short history. Those with whom we have shorter history with have closer ties to the countries from which they came. Some are here fighting for causes back in their homeland. Some have brought the heavy baggage of hatred. We have to come to grips with it as best we can and pray it will work out, no guarantees. Racism is far more complicated than the occasional mention of someone's ethnicity.With your attitude we would never get past G'day.

Posted by: Liz J at July 28, 2006 07:01 PM

---

Canada is made up of so many races, some with whom we have a long history with and some a very short history. Those with whom we have shorter history with have closer ties to the countries from which they came. Some are here fighting for causes back in their homeland. Some have brought the heavy baggage of hatred.

For the sake of debate, Liz, specifically which races/ethnicities/countries would you be referring to?

Posted by: A at July 28, 2006 07:46 PM

---

I think Liz has done absolutely the right thing in not naming the races/cultures in question. I think we all know which ones they are, but asking for the specifics only serves to cloud the discussion, unless you are prepared to debate the real issues (i.e. statistical and philosophical facts) pertaining to said races/cultures, which I've seen no indication of so far.

For the sake of debate? No. For the sake of straw-man arguments and squelching debate, perhaps.

The Charter did not supercede the Bill of Rights because the Bill of Rights was short-sighted. Far from "protecting" any previously-overlooked rights, the Charter merely "protects" certain left-wing ideals from rational debate. It enforces multiculturalism as a policy irrespective of the elected government, and thus enforces balkanization as an end result. Good for Liberals, bad for our country.

I doubt very much that our Prime Minister is ballsy enough to do anything about that right now, but I personally would vote for anyone willing eradicate that abomination and reinstate the original Bill of Rights as our constitution.

Posted by: Aaron G at July 28, 2006 09:16 PM

---

C'mon, Aaron, "A"'s just trying to get "Liz J" to lay all her cards on the table. Seems fair to me that she give the specifics of who she's talking about. We all know she isn't no racist. In fact, I think she oughta just come right out and name them, and then challenge "A" to try and debate the real issues about race without resorting to the old liberal "racist card". Don't think he can do it.

Posted by: Bach at July 28, 2006 11:45 PM

---

Trudeau forced the Charter on us with no approval by the Canadian people.

15. (1)of the charter does not mention sexual preference. It was debated and left out. Even though courts have now interpreted this document that is relatively young and with many of those involved writing it still alive. Ask the writers for an "interpretation". A well written law would not be "interpreted" so soon after creation.

Bringing hatred and the baggage from their homelands is common. Tamil terrorists, Sikh terrorists, IRA terrorists, islamic terrorists the list could go on. Overwhelming immigration without any attempt to ensure immigrant acclimate to Canada ensures that these problems continue and even flourish. That has been a result of Canadas multicultural policies. It can take 3 generations for the integration of immigrants. In the meantime Canadian culture gets swamped or overwhelmed.

In Vancouver wholesale movement of long term Canadians out to the suburbs and farther and large ethnic enclaves.
enough

Posted by: enough at July 29, 2006 12:19 PM

---