A SIKH as premier of British Columbia ?
Court Jester™/The Voltairian
wrote:
{And the bottom line: Why would east indians - Sikhs - sign up by the
{thousands to ensure the election of one of their own culture?
{
{Any guesses?
Likely because they share a familiar philosophy with the NDP, racism.
Gölök Zoltán Leenderdt Franco Buday
Free-Lance Writer; Humourist; Mental Patient
Vancouver, BC
The My Ego Times: http://MyEgoTimes.virtualave.net/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Veritas: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it" - Voltaire.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Al M. (Made of Teflon)
>
> Anyone who thinks that Ujjal Dosanjh wuld make a good leader for British
> Columbia should remember several other leaders who were voted in by ethnic
> voters:
> Raymond Chan - swept in by the majority Chinese population of Richmond, BC.
> He went on to represent only the Chinese - by opposing Ottawa's 'asset
> disclosure' legislation which would have ensured that Chinese paid taxes on
> money earned elsewhere.
>
> Then there is Herb Dhaliwal - elected by the voting block of east indians
> who made sure that THEIR representativae in Ottawa would not close down their
> fraud of our Unemployment Insurance fund. He delivered, in spades.
>
> Then there's Hedy Fry - from Jamaica, who promotes the 'rights' of visible
> minority women over that of others. She openly admits to breaking the law
> and prescribing drugs to non-Canadians, using tax-funded medical
> prescriptions. She should have been fined and de-licenced; instead she be-
> came a Liberal MP.
>
> And now we have a Sikh - Ujjal Dosanjh - who was not even born in this
> country, aspiring to the Premier's chair in British Columbia. It would be
> very wise for ever non-east-indian to remember that these 'ethnic elected'
> representatives go on to represent their own culture, not those of the
> general population - the majority of the population.
>
> If we think that 'no helmets for Sikhs' and 'millions for Sikh violence' is
> already a travesty, just wait until 'expanded laws against hatred speech and
> thought' is tabled. Why has no reporter gotten to the bottom of why Ujjal
> Dosanjh was meeting with Paul Gill, the brother of Peter Gill, while the
> latter was on trial for a gangland murder? Is it now considered appropriate
> for the Attorney General to be hob-nobbing with an accused murderer's family
> while the accused is on trial?
>
> And the bottom line: Why would east indians - Sikhs - sign up by the
> thousands to ensure the election of one of their own culture?
>
> Any guesses?
I am not going to respond to any of your post, because I think it
would only fuel your fire. But I will say that Hedy Fry is not from
Jamaica. I won't tell you where she's from because maybe you will
actually do some research first before you speak.
David
Herb Dwaliwal was Minister of National Revenue and is currently the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans. Hence, he has nothing to do with the Employment Insurance
(EI) system which has negligible levels of fraud in the first place. Mr. Dwaliwal
won Vancouver South-Burnaby by almost 5,000 votes. Is this not a legitimate
result Karen?
Raymond Chan won Richmond by 3,557 votes receiving a total of 18,114 votes. Is
this not a legitimate result Karen?
Dr. Fry was born in Trinidad, not Jamaica, and won her riding of Vancouver-Centre
by nearly 10,000 votes. Is this not a legitimate result Karen?
Polls show that Ujjal Dosanjh has the best chance against the Liberals and
someone you indicate you despise, Gordon Campbell. That being said, why would the
NDP pick some loser candidate like Joy MacPhail or Gordon Wilson?
Mr. G.
We will see a wave of Corruption in B. C. as never before seen!!! DRUG dealing by the East Indian and Chinese culture is exponentially higher than the White or Caucasian Culture. This is what these people represent and those who speak out for such Cultural Corruption.
How about your support for an East Indian who has allowed a Court System to utterly destroy what was a B. C. Society or the existence of the word FAMILY made up of what could have been a higher number of GOOD AND WELL BEHAVED CHILDREN! I know where you are coming from when you support this kind of CORRUPTION!!!
HOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT WOMEN HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FALSELY CLAIM ABUSE IN THE COURT SYSTEM AT MORE THAN 47% OF ALL CASES IN B. C. COURTS - UNDER HIS REGIME!
THIS MAN HAS ACTED LIKE A PUPPET TO THIS DEVIANT CULTURE WITH HUGE SUMS OF MONEY WASTED IN LINING HIS FRIEND POCKETS.
The Facts about this mans connections, have not begun to be revealed.
The support for this kind of person may well go off accepted in India, but not in CANADA!
This East Indian will represent what he already represents - by his
past track record, RAMPANT CORRUPTION IN B.C.
Ken
leader should tell us, though, is where he or she stands on the disgusting
trashing of human rights, civil liberties, and academic freedoms at SFU
(swim coach case, etc.) and UBC (political science case, Mahmoodi case,
etc.) Many cases have never come to public light.
Karen Gordon wrote in message <805ao9$7...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Karen Gordon) wrote:
>>>Raymond Chan - swept in by the majority Chinese population of Richmond,
BC.
>>>He went on to represent only the Chinese - by opposing Ottawa's 'asset
>>>disclosure' legislation which would have ensured that Chinese paid taxes
on
>>>money earned elsewhere.
>
>> Typical NDP math: 32% Chinese population, of whom almost 40% did not
have
>> a vote in the last two elections in which Raymond had been elected,
>> constitutes a majority.
>
>(K): Typical Liberal misinformation. The Asian population of Richmond,
prior
>to 1996 election:
>Richmond Centre:45% Richmond East:40% Richmond/Steveston:55%
>
>>>Then there is Herb Dhaliwal - elected by the voting block of east indians
>>>who made sure that THEIR representativae in Ottawa would not close down
their
>>>fraud of our Unemployment Insurance fund. He delivered, in spades.
>
>> Somehow this alleged "voting block of east indians" did not help Herb to
>> even get the nomination in Richmond. He had to go to Vancouver to replace
a
>> lunatic trying to run for the Liberals there.
>
>(K): And there is a shortage of east-indian voters in south Vancouver?
Last
>time I looked, it was the seat for the largest Sikh temple in Canada. This
>guy was their ticket to continuing U.I. fraud in the millions of dollars.
>When he was confronted with the figures and hidden-camera revelations, he
just
>just smirked. Last week, in Ottawa, asked to explain the recent report
which
>has pin-pointed east-indian U.I. fraud in both agriculture and the
maintenance
>business, he smirked again; "Take it up with the CURRENT Revenue Minister."
>
>>>Then there's Hedy Fry - from Jamaica, who promotes the 'rights' of
visible
>>>minority women over that of others. She openly admits to breaking the
law
>>>and prescribing drugs to non-Canadians, using tax-funded medical
>>>prescriptions.
>
>> Poor KKKaren, can't get her facts straight (ehm) even when she's on to a
>> good thing: Hedy was prescribing to homosexuals. No mileage in
buttering
>> up "non-Canadians" they don't have a vote. Actually, Hedy was scamming
>> private insurance companies by prescribing the medications to the one of
>> the homosexual partners who had company paid pharmacare plan. Not a thing
>> one would write home about, a scam is a scam, but there were no tax
dollars
>> involved.
>
>(K): Well, KKKarl, coming from someone who has only a single token visible
>minority member in his party, the KKK tag better fits the BC Liberals,
don't
>you think? Hedy Fry prescribed drugs which are tax-funded by Canadians to
>AMERICAN partners of homosexuals who had come up to Canada to avail them-
>selves of our 'free' medical system. She was unrepentant when found out;
>that made her federal Liberal material.
>
>>>And now we have a Sikh - Ujjal Dosanjh - who was not even born in this
>>>country, aspiring to the Premier's chair in British Columbia.
>
>> Now that's a really serious matter, KKKaren. Gosh, Dosanjh was not born
>> in Canada? Why that's almost as bad Sir John A. Macdonald, Alexander
>> Mackenzie and John N. Turner !!
>
>(K): Not really.... they were not elected by blocks of their own culture,
>ensuring special privileges and cover-ups for their criminal element. How-
>ever I think it's long past time we has a clause added to our election laws
>that prevent anyone not born in Canada from aspiring to leadership of the
>country - as in the U.S. Leadership of a province is no less important an
>issue, especially when we see the reasons why ethnic minorities vote in
>ethnic leaders.
>
>>>It would be
>>>very wise for every non-east-indian to remember that these 'ethnic
elected'
>>>representatives go on to represent their own culture, not those of the
>>>general population - the majority of the population.
>
>> Absolutely. Isn;t that why the Sikh extremists had beat him up so that he
>> spent a few weeks in the hospital? I guess he was really representing
>> their culture.
>
>(K): He certainly was representing a large segment of it. The other
segment
>just didn't appreciate it very much. Did you think they beat him up
because
>he was representing the non-east indian part of our society?
>Along those lines: I remember a Sikh who was slashed so badly in the temple
>melees that he spent over 2 months in hospital. Wouldn't that make him
>better qualified to run for Premier than Ujjal Dosanjh?
>
>PS, KKKarl.... Why is it that the BC Liberals have only ONE visible
minority
>in their caucus? Is it because they are not-too-astute with regards who
>wields voting power, or does this just reveal there is a tad more 'racism'
>inherent in your party than in the NDP?
Ken
Court Jester™/The Voltairian
<alm...@home.com> wrote:
{ I am not going to respond to any of your post, because I think it
{would only fuel your fire.
You just did.
{But I will say that Hedy Fry is not from Jamaica. I won't tell you
{where she's from because maybe you will
{actually do some research first before you speak.
Trinidad-Tobago right?
Chris Steinbach
: Karen Gordon needs to get her facts straight.
Wasn;t Raymond Chan the fellow who had all those things to say
about Svend in '93, in chinese?
- Christopher Steinbach
: Herb Dwaliwal was Minister of National Revenue and is currently the Minister of
: Fisheries and Oceans. Hence, he has nothing to do with the Employment Insurance
: (EI) system which has negligible levels of fraud in the first place. Mr. Dwaliwal
: won Vancouver South-Burnaby by almost 5,000 votes. Is this not a legitimate
: result Karen?
: Raymond Chan won Richmond by 3,557 votes receiving a total of 18,114 votes. Is
: this not a legitimate result Karen?
: Dr. Fry was born in Trinidad, not Jamaica, and won her riding of Vancouver-Centre
: by nearly 10,000 votes. Is this not a legitimate result Karen?
: Polls show that Ujjal Dosanjh has the best chance against the Liberals and
: someone you indicate you despise, Gordon Campbell. That being said, why would the
: NDP pick some loser candidate like Joy MacPhail or Gordon Wilson?
: Karen Gordon wrote:
:> Anyone who thinks that Ujjal Dosanjh wuld make a good leader for British
:> Columbia should remember several other leaders who were voted in by ethnic
:> voters:
:> Raymond Chan - swept in by the majority Chinese population of Richmond, BC.
:> He went on to represent only the Chinese - by opposing Ottawa's 'asset
:> disclosure' legislation which would have ensured that Chinese paid taxes on
:> money earned elsewhere.
:>
:> Then there is Herb Dhaliwal - elected by the voting block of east indians
:> who made sure that THEIR representativae in Ottawa would not close down their
:> fraud of our Unemployment Insurance fund. He delivered, in spades.
:>
:> Then there's Hedy Fry - from Jamaica, who promotes the 'rights' of visible
:> minority women over that of others. She openly admits to breaking the law
:> and prescribing drugs to non-Canadians, using tax-funded medical
:> prescriptions. She should have been fined and de-licenced; instead she be-
:> came a Liberal MP.
:>
:> And now we have a Sikh - Ujjal Dosanjh - who was not even born in this
:> country, aspiring to the Premier's chair in British Columbia. It would be
:> very wise for ever non-east-indian to remember that these 'ethnic elected'
:> representatives go on to represent their own culture, not those of the
:> general population - the majority of the population.
:>
:> If we think that 'no helmets for Sikhs' and 'millions for Sikh violence' is
Brian Allardice
>...why would the
>NDP pick some loser candidate like Joy MacPhail or Gordon Wilson?
Why indeed? But I wouldn't bet on it not happening...
Cheers,
dba
Honest John
wrote:
>Poor KKKaren, can't get her facts straight (ehm) even when she's on to a
>good thing: Hedy was prescribing to homosexuals. No mileage in buttering
>up "non-Canadians" they don't have a vote. Actually, Hedy was scamming
>private insurance companies by prescribing the medications to the one of
>the homosexual partners who had company paid pharmacare plan. Not a thing
>one would write home about, a scam is a scam, but there were no tax dollars
>involved.
So why wasn't she charged and why isn't she in jail?
em
quit asking for attention. and please stop posting racially biased
materials.
you are fucked up individual.
and.
you make me sick.
grow up.
Al M. (Made of Teflon)
>
> (K): Typical Liberal misinformation. The Asian population of > Richmond, prior
> to 1996 election:
> Richmond Centre:45% Richmond East:40% Richmond/Steveston:55%
Karen, you are totally wrong, Karl is correct. The population of
Richmond RESIDENTS that are Chinese does not equate the population of
Richmond VOTERS that are Chinese.
I would like to know where you got your statistic from, as
well. Raymond Chan was not and could not in any way have been
elected due to the Chinese population. The majority of Richmond VOTERS
were and are not Chinese.
> (K): Well, KKKarl, coming from someone who has only a single token > visible
> minority member in his party, the KKK tag better fits the BC Liberals, > don't
> you think?
Oh my god you are SUCH as hypocrite. First you connect all
non-whites with crime and then you complain that the Liberals don't have
enough visible minorities?
KKKaren, you have consistently shown yourself to be racist
(calling all natives "lazy", all Chinese "criminals", and connecting
Indo-Canadians to fraud). And now you are lamenting that the Liberals
don't have enough visible minorities?
>
> (K): Not really.... they were not elected by blocks of their own > culture,
> ensuring special privileges and cover-ups for their criminal element. > However I think it's long past time we has a clause added to our > election laws
> that prevent anyone not born in Canada from aspiring to leadership of > the
> country - as in the U.S. Leadership of a province is no less > important an
> issue, especially when we see the reasons why ethnic minorities vote > in ethnic leaders.
>
Well, first of all, I think YOU are a perfect example of why many
ethnic minorities vote for people of their own ethnic group. If I moved
to a country, and the locals were as rabid and angry and intolerant and
racist as you, I'd gravitate towards someone of my own kind as well.
Secondly, Ujjal Dosanjh is a Canadian citizen. There are not various
level of citizen. ALL citizens of Canada have the right to run for
office of Canada. People born outside of Canada pay taxes to this
country and as long as they are citizens, have every right to run for
office of this country, and many of them are very very capable folks.
> PS, KKKarl.... Why is it that the BC Liberals have only ONE visible minority
> in their caucus? Is it because they are not-too-astute with regards who
> wields voting power, or does this just reveal there is a tad more 'racism'
> inherent in your party than in the NDP?
KKKaren, your sudden concern for ethnic minorities won't convince
anyone. You are repeatedly shown your racist views to this newsgroup.
Dave 2
>
> In bc.general David <dav...@home.com> wrote:
> : Karen Gordon needs to get her facts straight.
>
> Wasn;t Raymond Chan the fellow who had all those things to say
> about Svend in '93, in chinese?
>
That was some other Liberal, Kwan... or Kwok?
--
Happiness is a fresh TripTik.
Warning: Address has been modified.
Ken
for their views and political actions. The A-G should now make clear what
his stand is on the disgusting events at SFU and UBC which are (you`re
correct about this) the result of legislation that permitted and even
encouraged the assault on human rights, civil liberties, and academic
freedoms. This should be part of the leadership debate, and all the other
parties should be forthcoming about their own views on the matter too.
How they all respond will determine a lot of people`s votes.
Karen Gordon wrote in message <807iub$c...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"Ken" (Ke...@bc.sympatica.ca) writes:
>> The race, religion or atheism, etc. are irrelevant. What any potential
>> leader should tell us, though, is where he or she stands on the
disgusting
>> trashing of human rights, civil liberties, and academic freedoms at SFU
>> (swim coach case, etc.) and UBC (political science case, Mahmoodi case,
>> etc.) Many cases have never come to public light.
>
>ethnically-elected candidates - such as Ujjal Dosanjh would be - are
>obligated to 'return the favour' to the group which elected them. Ujjal
>Dosanjh has already shown himself to be a proponent of oppressive 'human
>rights' legislation (contrary to his civil liberties experience).
>
>And as far as Canadian customs and laws? Remember that it was BC Sikhs
>who initiated the RCMP with turbans and no-helmets for Sikh cyclists. The
>race of the candidate can be VERY important if that person is more tied to
>the culture of another country than to that of Canada. I would say, that
>from Dosanjh's affiliations and support system, that culture would be
>east-indian and not Canadian. No different than Herb Dhaliwal or Raymond
>Chan - and they very quickly took up the demands of their culture over that
>of Canadians as soon as they were elected.
Satan's Revenge
there a "question" mark at the end of a statement. It is probably a
statement by a racist.
Fat Pat
> And the bottom line: Why would east indians - Sikhs - sign up by the
> thousands to ensure the election of one of their own culture?
>
> Any guesses?
It's just human nature, Karen.
I mean, if you were to run, I'm sure the vast majority of KKKites would come rushing to
the polls to be sure you get your seat in Victoria. Right? Right...
Fatpat
Neil Tupper
Karen Gordon <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
>
> Then there is Herb Dhaliwal - elected by the voting block of east indians
> who made sure that THEIR representativae in Ottawa would not close down
their
> fraud of our Unemployment Insurance fund. He delivered, in spades.
>
Do you have any evidence of "their" fraud? Or is this more of your
xenophobic bigotry?
Neil
Fat Pat
> (K): What are KKKites? Are you hanging around in a bad part of town again?
This is yer department, I'm sure.
> 'Human nature' often needs to be guarded against; especially when it comes
> to ethnic voters attempting to ensure the election of someone purely on
> ethnic grounds.
Dribble, Karen.
You don't get it, do you? Who do you think these Sikhs are going to vote for, anyway?
Frosty the Snowman??? Of course they are going to hang close to their ethnic group.
I'm Irish, I might favour an Irish candidate, if he was any good. An Italian may favour
an Italian candidate.
You live in Canada, my dear. These people are allowed to make this choice, whether you
like it or not, sweetie.
I think your biggest problem is, Karen, you don't like the colour of skin unless it's
milky white! Am I correct?
I also believe people like you simply "fan the flames" and "fuel the fires" of racial
intolerance and ethnic hatred.
Now, git back to yer "Play Station".
Fatpat
Ken
Parliament, the press, and the police to whom it could be reported. As for
the human rights fiasco, which was deliberately skewed from the beginning,
it is true that the NDP brought in this legislation, and it was debated in
the legislature in Victoria by ALL parties. Consequently, the members from
all parties, then and those hoping to run, must make their policies and
views clear on this issue. Who voted FOR this legislation? Who voted
AGAINST? Have they changed their minds? There is also a need for an
in-depth investigation into the people who run these "equity" offices and
enforce the "codes"-- perhaps there are grounds for prosecutions here.
Surely false charges of rape, etc. should be punished severely, with prison
sentences. Perhaps psychologists could give us a profile of the TYPE of
person who is attracted to this kind or "work". Laziness would seem to be
one attribute. But there are other possibilities too--are they sexually
stimulated by gender issues?
Neil Tupper wrote in message ...
Erik
Satan's Revenge wrote:
> Another question: A WHITE MAN as a premier of British Columbia? What
is
> there a "question" mark at the end of a statement. It is probably a
> statement by a racist.
Sikhs are not a race. BC is probably one of the few parts of Canada that's
had a non-white leader.
E.Schild
esc...@uniserve.com
Erik
Deborah wrote:
>
> What non-white leader has B.C. had to date?
James Douglas.
E.Schild
esc...@uniserve.com
John Carrick
>>And as far as Canadian customs and laws? Remember that it was BC Sikhs
>>who initiated the RCMP with turbans and no-helmets for Sikh cyclists. The
>>race of the candidate can be VERY important if that person is more tied to
>>the culture of another country than to that of Canada. I would say, that
>>from Dosanjh's affiliations and support system, that culture would be
>>east-indian and not Canadian. No different than Herb Dhaliwal or Raymond
>>Chan - and they very quickly took up the demands of their culture over that
>>of Canadians as soon as they were elected.
I respectfully suggest that you make yourself familiar with Canadian
Hate Crime laws.
You are skating on very thin ice, when you call on voters to never
support for public office anyone who does not share their cultural
background. That sounds very much like hate speech.
No, I am not trying to start a fight with you. I am just stating that
the courts could easily interpret such words as racist talk.
All Canadians are considered equal before the law, and adult
Canadians of all nationalities and faiths have the right to present
themselves for public office without being attacked on the basis of
their cultural background.
Vote as you please, of course, but I suggest that you not call upon
others to boycott people who you consider to be of the "wrong" colour,
religion, or culture. Thatt is certainly distasteful, but more
important, it may be illegal for you to do so.
Honest John
wrote:
>All Canadians are considered equal before the law,
If only that were true. In fact, as some of our East Coast fishermen
have recently discovered, it is not true.
Deborah
What non-white leader has B.C. had to date?
Deborah
Deborah
>
>Deborah wrote:
>
>>
>> What non-white leader has B.C. had to date?
>
>James Douglas.
Okay. I recall he was half negro. (That was the word in his day).
He was, however, a mere Lt. Gov.
He was the one who claimed BC in the name of her Majesty Queen
Victoria. He was the one who strung the natives of this country out
to dry. Nice guy. You'd think he'd have a little more empathy with
other non-white races. But he did it to keep the USA from claiming
the land. This was back in the gold rush beginnings. I'll give him
that much.
Deborah
Paige Smyth
Erik <Er...@elsewhere.ca> wrote in message
news:94221175...@neptune.uniserve.ca...
>
> Satan's Revenge wrote:
>
> > Another question: A WHITE MAN as a premier of British Columbia? What
> is
> > there a "question" mark at the end of a statement. It is probably a
> > statement by a racist.
>
> Sikhs are not a race. BC is probably one of the few parts of Canada
that's
> had a non-white leader.
>
> E.Schild
> esc...@uniserve.com
>
Arab for a leader just a few years back? Joe Somebody
Dave 2
>
> On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 23:58:42 -0800, "Erik" <Er...@elsewhere.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >Deborah wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> What non-white leader has B.C. had to date?
> >
> >James Douglas.
>
> Okay. I recall he was half negro. (That was the word in his day).
>
> He was, however, a mere Lt. Gov.
This may seem a minor nit-pick at first, but on second thought, it is significant.
James Douglas was *governor*, not the Lt. Gov. post that we know now. This
was prior to confederation. In this sense, he was a leader.
Dave 2
Joe Ghiz of PEI.
If one does include LGs, there was Lincoln Alexander in Ontario.
Chris Steinbach
: On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 23:58:42 -0800, "Erik" <Er...@elsewhere.ca> wrote:
:>
:>Deborah wrote:
:>
:>>
:>> What non-white leader has B.C. had to date?
:>
:>James Douglas.
: Okay. I recall he was half negro. (That was the word in his day).
: He was, however, a mere Lt. Gov.
Didn't the Governors in Council have way more power back then?
- Christopher Steinbach
: He was the one who claimed BC in the name of her Majesty Queen
Deborah
> Didn't the Governors in Council have way more power back then?
>
> - Christopher Steinbach
They were the colonial representatives of the Monarch. They colonized
this country.
Deborah
Paige Smyth
Karen Gordon <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:80cmkq$3...@freenet-news.carleton.ca...
> John Carrick (crs...@inforamp.net) writes:
> > I respectfully suggest that you make yourself familiar with Canadian
> > Hate Crime laws.
>
> (K): And I respectfully suggest you stick it where the sun don't shine.
> Unless Ujjal Dosanjh is elected as BC's premier, we will have freedom of
> speech. Of course, if he's elected, that could change very quickly.
>
What nonsense. There is no free speech in BC. The current hate crime
legislation brought in by your NDP compatriots can penalize someone for
thought much less speech.
Geez I hate it when I agree with Carrick!
Neil Tupper
Karen Gordon <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
>
> (K): The story has been on the news for over two months now - full
> coverage by BC TV reporters - hidden camera admissions, etc. Where the
> hell have you been, Neil Tupper? Practising at 'political correctness'
> school?
>
Full coverage by BCTV huh? A couple of stories which claim that SOME
Indo-Canadians are engaged in EI fraud. No analysis of whether or not this
was out of proportion to their numbers. Much like your previous claims that
the Chinese community comprises not much more than criminals. Or your
repeated claims, contrary to all published reports, that the crime rate is
increasing and most of that attributable to immigrants. No "Karen Gordon",
we all know on this ng your far right wing paranoia about foreigners,
particularly those visibly identifiable.
Neil
Erik
Deborah wrote:
[snipped ont.politics]
> >> What non-white leader has B.C. had to date?
> >
> >James Douglas.
>
> Okay. I recall he was half negro. (That was the word in his day).
Nope. He was half 'Hawaiian' ('Kanaka' was the word in his day).
>
> He was, however, a mere Lt. Gov.
Nope.
>
> He was the one who claimed BC in the name of her Majesty Queen
> Victoria.
Nope. That was done well before Douglas.
> He was the one who strung the natives of this country out
> to dry. Nice guy. You'd think he'd have a little more empathy with
> other non-white races. But he did it to keep the USA from claiming
> the land. This was back in the gold rush beginnings. I'll give him
> that much.
Douglas had nothing to do with any part of 'this country' other than what we
now call BC.
Read some history. I'd suggest Margaret Ormsby's _British Columbia: A
History_; or the Akrigg's _British Columbia Chronicle_; or Robin Fisher's
rather pro-aboriginal _Contact & Conflict_.
It was the European and Canadian settlers who eventually got rid of Douglas.
Your suggestion that Douglas was somehow 'anti-Indian' is simply not
supported by historical record. In fact the opposite is often true. It's
unfortunate that BC primary and secondary students don't know anything of
James Douglas, or much else of BC history.
E.Schild
esc...@uniserve.com
Erik
Chris Steinbach <c...@sfu.ca> wrote:
[ont.politics not snipped because I assume many Ontarioans are ignorant of
their history as well]
> :>> What non-white leader has B.C. had to date?
> :>
> :>James Douglas.
>
> : Okay. I recall he was half negro. (That was the word in his day).
>
> : He was, however, a mere Lt. Gov.
>
> Didn't the Governors in Council have way more power back then?
>
> - Christopher Steinbach
<YIKES!!> I hope you're just visiting BC-SFU from back east.
This Lt. Gov./Governors in Council thing is getting _way_ out of hand.
Maybe we _are_ spending too much money for computers in classrooms. This
complete lack of knowledge of BC history would be abominable if the case was
transposed to the UK, or the US.
Is this the case in Ontario and other provinces as well? Are kids not being
taught the history of the areas in which they live?
E.Schild
esc...@uniserve.com
Deborah
>
>> >> What non-white leader has B.C. had to date?
>> >
>> >James Douglas.
>>
>> Okay. I recall he was half negro. (That was the word in his day).
>Nope. He was half 'Hawaiian' ('Kanaka' was the word in his day).
Nope. He was half negro.
>> He was, however, a mere Lt. Gov.
>
>Nope.
I've already conceded the correction that he was Gov. in C.
>> He was the one who claimed BC in the name of her Majesty Queen
>> Victoria.
>
>Nope. That was done well before Douglas.
Nope. That was done by Douglas.
>>> He was the one who strung the natives of this country out
>> to dry. Nice guy. You'd think he'd have a little more empathy with
>> other non-white races. But he did it to keep the USA from claiming
>> the land. This was back in the gold rush beginnings. I'll give him
>> that much.
>
>Douglas had nothing to do with any part of 'this country' other than what we
>now call BC.
Yes, conceded. I should have said "the natives of B.C."
>Read some history. I'd suggest Margaret Ormsby's _British Columbia: A
>History_; or the Akrigg's _British Columbia Chronicle_; or Robin Fisher's
>rather pro-aboriginal _Contact & Conflict_.
My learning in this matter comes from Law School. I'll stand by it.
>It was the European and Canadian settlers who eventually got rid of Douglas.
>Your suggestion that Douglas was somehow 'anti-Indian' is simply not
>supported by historical record.
I didn't say that. I said he claimed B.C. for her Majesty the Queen,
in order that it should not be claimed by the USA, when it became
apparent there was gold here. Without a thought of the natives.
Which is basically what got us where we are today.
> In fact the opposite is often true. It's
>unfortunate that BC primary and secondary students don't know anything of
>James Douglas, or much else of BC history.
Yes, well, I'm a little more advanced, educationally, myself, than
elementary or secondary. But I did not learn about James Douglas
until University, it is true.
Deborah
Bob Davies
subject to some of their sillier plottings. But, John has a good point.
Why don't you stick to his (UD's) record. Perhaps if you give the right
lead ins, I could give you some ammo. It would be my pleasure.
Personally I think Corky Evans should lead the NDP - he would be
perfect.
Karen Gordon wrote:
>
> [....cut of pious p/c crap] of John Carrick's post...
> (K): And I respectfully suggest you stick it where the sun don't shine.
> Unless Ujjal Dosanjh is elected as BC's premier, we will have freedom of
> speech. Of course, if he's elected, that could change very quickly.
--
Bob Davies
Socialism is about the equal distribution of poverty!
Learn about Socialism - everyone needs a laugh!
http://www.worldsocialism.org/
Bob Davies
the this issue. I have never let politics stand in the way of truth,
freedom and the way of light. Nor should (or did) you.
Paige Smyth wrote:
>
> Karen Gordon <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:80cmkq$3...@freenet-news.carleton.ca...
> > John Carrick (crs...@inforamp.net) writes:
> > > I respectfully suggest that you make yourself familiar with Canadian
> > > Hate Crime laws.
> >
> > [....cut of pious p/c crap]
> > (K): And I respectfully suggest you stick it where the sun don't shine.
> > Unless Ujjal Dosanjh is elected as BC's premier, we will have freedom of
> > speech. Of course, if he's elected, that could change very quickly.
> >
> What nonsense. There is no free speech in BC. The current hate crime
> legislation brought in by your NDP compatriots can penalize someone for
> thought much less speech.
>
> Geez I hate it when I agree with Carrick!
--
Chris Steinbach
: Chris Steinbach <c...@sfu.ca> wrote:
: [ont.politics not snipped because I assume many Ontarioans are ignorant of
: their history as well]
:> :>> What non-white leader has B.C. had to date?
:> :>
:> :>James Douglas.
:>
:> : Okay. I recall he was half negro. (That was the word in his day).
:>
:> : He was, however, a mere Lt. Gov.
:>
:> Didn't the Governors in Council have way more power back then?
:>
:> - Christopher Steinbach
: <YIKES!!> I hope you're just visiting BC-SFU from back east.
I wish I were with my knowledge of history, but I'm not. The
history here focuses around Upper and Lower Canada now-adays. I know that
early in the century, one of Edward VII/George V's Lt-gov was sent back
for refusing to sign royal assent (at least if I remember correctly, I
haven't heard that since about grade 2), and that by that point, the power
of the executive was in the legislature. But I can't remember when the
legislature was formed, and what level of real power the gov's had before
confederation.
I think that they had a lot, since Victoria did. Let's face it,
there was a Lord in this century and PM of England, and we had a Sen or
two just before that. At that time, the monarchy still had a lot of power
over the government, and I'm not sure when it broke here.
I've read little bits in the paper that lead me to conclude that
Douglas may have had some real executive power, but I never really cared
enough to look it up.
But you should be worried, I'm a good indication of what to expect
from a BC high school grad attending a university when it comes to
history. Maybe better since I remember the strangest facts. Maybe you
should ask your MLAs to 'toughen up' the high school curricula. As a
recent grad of high-school, I certainly think it should be done. I feel
so strongly that we are failing our children so badly that I considered
taking a lighter course load and running for school board trustee in order
to do what I could to remedy the situation.
- Christopher Steinbach
: This Lt. Gov./Governors in Council thing is getting _way_ out of hand.
Deborah
Sir James Douglas
James Douglas
Why wasn't the Cariboo an absolute chaos during the goldrush? All the
ingredients were there: lots of miners from all over Europe and North
America, far from families, governments, and other civilizing
influences, desperate for gold. They didn't have roads or courthouses
or post offices when it all started. The Cariboo should have been a
dangerous, scary place. There were some fights and murders, but it
wasn't "wild". Why not? Because of James Douglas (1803-1877), Governor
of the colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia, known as
"the father of British Columbia."
Governor Douglas was born in British Guiana into a "Scotch West
Indian" family. He spent most of his career working in the fur trade
in what is now British Columbia, for the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC).
At Fort St. James he married Amelia Connolly, daughter of the "chief
factor" of the fort and his First Nations wife. In 1851 Douglas was
appointed the second Governor of the Colony of Vancouver Island.
Hard-working, intelligent and well-read, confident and decisive,
Douglas was in many ways an ideal governor - though some called him
vain and autocratic.
When gold was discovered on the Fraser River in 1857, there was no
British colony in the area yet, just a few HBC forts. Douglas was
worried that the Americans coming up to find gold would take over the
territory. He wrote to his boss in Britain, the Colonial Secretary -
but in those days when messages travelled by horse and sailing ship,
it took months for a message to get to Britain and back.
So Douglas went into action. He proclaimed that people could only
claim mines if they took out licenses under his control, as the
representative of British authority. He hired policemen, drew up
mining regulations, and visited the diggings himself. Imagine Douglas
appearing in a formerly lawless mining camp, with fewer than 40 men as
back-up, announcing that this was British territory and that "no
abuses would be tolerated, and that the Laws would protect the rights
of the Indians no less than those of the white men." Douglas was
certainly brave! He wrote to a friend that he had never before seen "a
crowd of more ruffianly looking men." But he won those men's respect
and they even obeyed his command to give three cheers for the queen.
In 1858 Britain created the new crown colony of British Columbia and
made Douglas the Governor - he and Chief Justice Matthew Begbie were
sworn in together at Fort Langley. Douglas started appointing other
government officials, such as Thomas Elwyn, to help keep law and order
in the goldfields. To ensure provisions would be available for miners
he encouraged trade and farming, and built the Douglas Trail and the
Cariboo Wagon Road. Douglas did everything he could to ensure that
commerce and travel relating to the gold rush happened mainly on
British rather than American territory, and that British law ruled the
Cariboo - and he succeeded.
In 1864 Douglas stepped down as governor and was knighted as a reward
for his services. After some travels abroad he retired to Victoria and
devoted the rest of his life to his family. He is buried in Victoria's
Ross Bay Cemetery.
Erik Schild
Deborah wrote:
> >Nope. He was half 'Hawaiian' ('Kanaka' was the word in his day).
>
> Nope. He was half negro.
I sit corrected
>
> >> He was, however, a mere Lt. Gov.
> >
> >Nope.
>
> I've already conceded the correction that he was Gov. in C.
>
> >> He was the one who claimed BC in the name of her Majesty Queen
> >> Victoria.
> >
> >Nope. That was done well before Douglas.
>
> Nope. That was done by Douglas.
Perhaps you mean 'proclaimed'. BC was certainly under the thumb of the
British Monarchy before Douglas or Victoria came along.
>
> >>> He was the one who strung the natives of this country out
> >> to dry. Nice guy. You'd think he'd have a little more empathy with
> >> other non-white races. But he did it to keep the USA from claiming
> >> the land. This was back in the gold rush beginnings. I'll give him
> >> that much.
> >
> >Douglas had nothing to do with any part of 'this country' other than what
we
> >now call BC.
>
> Yes, conceded. I should have said "the natives of B.C."
>
> >Read some history. I'd suggest Margaret Ormsby's _British Columbia: A
> >History_; or the Akrigg's _British Columbia Chronicle_; or Robin Fisher's
> >rather pro-aboriginal _Contact & Conflict_.
>
> My learning in this matter comes from Law School. I'll stand by it.
The historical concensus appears to be that Douglas was a prime reason for
BC's not being another Wyoming. Do I have to attend 'Law School' to discern
your reasoning?
>
> >It was the European and Canadian settlers who eventually got rid of
Douglas.
> >Your suggestion that Douglas was somehow 'anti-Indian' is simply not
> >supported by historical record.
>
> I didn't say that. I said he claimed B.C. for her Majesty the Queen,
> in order that it should not be claimed by the USA, when it became
> apparent there was gold here. Without a thought of the natives.
> Which is basically what got us where we are today.
You said he 'strung the natives out to dry'. 'Without a thought for the
natives'. Sounds pretty anti-Indian to me . . .
Is this all in argument against my original post?
He did _not_ claim BC for Britain. This had been done as far back as the
Nootka convention.
Douglas proclaimed BC as a colony in 1858. The territory had been defined
by the Treaty of Washington in 1846 when McLoughlin was the HBC chief.
>
> > In fact the opposite is often true. It's
> >unfortunate that BC primary and secondary students don't know anything of
> >James Douglas, or much else of BC history.
> Yes, well, I'm a little more advanced, educationally, myself, than
> elementary or secondary. But I did not learn about James Douglas
> until University, it is true.
OK. But going back to the original thread; doesn't James Douglas count as
'non-white'?
E.Schild
esc...@uniserve.com
Anonymous
wrote:
>And now we have a Sikh - Ujjal Dosanjh - who was not even born in this
>country, aspiring to the Premier's chair in British Columbia. It would be
>very wise for ever non-east-indian to remember that these 'ethnic elected'
>representatives go on to represent their own culture, not those of the
>general population - the majority of the population.
I don't know how his representation of those with the same ethnic origin
as his has been, but, as Attorney General and the chief law enforcement
Officer of B.C., I do know that he is aware that certain B.C. Supreme
Court Judges are, not only NOTapplying the law in all their decisions,
but some are even completely disregarding rulings of the Supreme Court.
What will he do when some Judge here decides to overrule the Supreme
Court decision regarding the Indian Treaties, specifically, R v Marshal?
To reply via E-Mail, please replace "anonymous" with the correct names in the appropriate locations.
Deborah
wrote:
>OK. But going back to the original thread; doesn't James Douglas count as
>'non-white'?
>
>E.Schild
>esc...@uniserve.com
What is the matter with you? I haven't been arguing that James
Douglas wasn't non-white. I conceded that as soon as it was
mentioned.
If you think the HBC had anything formally to do with BC becoming
British territory, you are certifiable. The HBC was a business. Not
an arm of the state. It had no authority to act on behalf of the
Queen.
Deborah
Rodney Smelser
> It's OK - he's turning over a new leaf. Besides - he's simply right on
> the this issue. I have never let politics stand in the way of truth,
> freedom and the way of light. Nor should (or did) you.
Who is the "he" referred to above?
> Paige Smyth wrote:
This, I assume, is what Paige Smyth had to say:
> > What nonsense. There is no free speech in BC. The current hate crime
> > legislation brought in by your NDP compatriots can penalize someone for
> > thought much less speech.
These statements are not opinions, they are falsehoods. Smyth knows that. So
does everyone else.
Yours truly,
Rod Smelser
Ken
charges of racism originate? REad some good histories of BC.
Erik wrote in message <94230301...@neptune.uniserve.ca>...
>
>Deborah wrote:
>
>[snipped ont.politics]
>
>> >> What non-white leader has B.C. had to date?
>> >
>> >James Douglas.
>>
>
>Nope. He was half 'Hawaiian' ('Kanaka' was the word in his day).
>
>>
>
>Nope.
>
>>
>> Victoria.
>
>Nope. That was done well before Douglas.
>
>> to dry. Nice guy. You'd think he'd have a little more empathy with
>> other non-white races. But he did it to keep the USA from claiming
>> the land. This was back in the gold rush beginnings. I'll give him
>> that much.
>
>Douglas had nothing to do with any part of 'this country' other than what
we
>now call BC.
>
>History_; or the Akrigg's _British Columbia Chronicle_; or Robin Fisher's
>rather pro-aboriginal _Contact & Conflict_.
>
Douglas.
>Your suggestion that Douglas was somehow 'anti-Indian' is simply not
>unfortunate that BC primary and secondary students don't know anything of
>James Douglas, or much else of BC history.
>
>esc...@uniserve.com
>
>
>
Ken
court, the end of the process.
Anonymous wrote in message <382ada6a...@204.244.156.11>...
Van
wrote:
>
>Karen Gordon <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote
>>
Hey Neil, Easy now. There is no way in hell that Karen Gordons
foreigener view is is right wing. You are insulting those of us who
consider themselves right wing. No call her paranoia for what it is
and that is of a small minded racists.
Deborah
wrote:
>BC judges cannot overrule the Supreme Court of Canada. THat is the final
>court, the end of the process.
More correctly, if they DO, it is grounds for appeal.
Deborah
Deborah
wrote:
>The beloved wife of Douglas was native Indian, so where on earth do these
>charges of racism originate? REad some good histories of BC.
>Erik wrote in message <94230301...@neptune.uniserve.ca>...
I believe she was half-native. I am not charging Douglas with racism.
I am charging him with proclaiming BC in the name of Her Majesty Queen
Victoria. He did this. He was even the one who RECOMMENDED that it
be done (and maybe the natives are better off with the Monarch than
they would have been with Uncle Sam) and there was never any treatying
aforehand - or not much, anyway. Which is why we now have all these
land claims to settle.
Deborah
John Corman
<rodney_...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
Tot the following:
>> > What nonsense. There is no free speech in BC. The current hate crime
>> > legislation brought in by your NDP compatriots can penalize someone for
>> > thought much less speech.
Rodney stated that>
>These statements are not opinions, they are falsehoods. Smyth knows that. So
>does everyone else.
>Rod Smelser
======================================================
You know Rodney, the post you're referring to is not that far off
reality. Consider the recent UBC case of creating a "sexualized
environments".
We all know that nothing was done that was actually wrong. All that
the Tribunal concluded was that it was reasonable to conclude that the
perpetrator of the Human Rights offences must have been thinking of
doing something wrong.
It's getting pretty scary out there Rodney, in my opinion.
John Corman ****** @server home.com
Rodney Smelser
the year 2000. It's a small table and I hope the columns stay put in this
Email so that it can be read by everyone. It's a purely imaginative exercise,
which I hope will point out that the 1996 election result, a narrow majority of
just one seat, based on a 2% loss in the popular vote, is not by any means the
most extreme type of result that could materialize.
If a party is being aggressively and professionally smeared by the commercial
mass media to the point
where it's ambient support level falls to 15 to 20 percent, what recourse does
it have? Perhaps in areas
where it has some local strength, some on-the-ground organization, it can muster
an effort that will
successfully counter the media's manufactured public opinion. But it can only
achieve that result in those
local areas where it does have an organization, leaving many other localities at
the 15 to 20 percent level
that results from the mass media propaganda effort.
The results might resemble the following:
Scenario for a BC General Election 2000
NDP Seats Liberal
Seats Reform Seats BC Total
Number of Seats 51
24 4 79
Average Total Vote in Party's Ridings 20,000 24,333
22,000 21,418
NDP % 55.1%
21.6% 15.0% 41.4%
Lib % 39.5%
66.1% 40.0% 48.7%
Ref % 5.4%
12.4% 45.0% 9.9%
Total Votes in Party's Ridings 1,020,000
584,000 88,000 1,692,000
Total NDP Votes 561,600
126,000 13,200 700,800
Total Lib Votes 403,000
385,800 35,200 824,000
Total Ref Votes 55,400
72,200 39,600 167,200
Note that this scenario contains a rather interesting "electoral lock" feature.
The winning party gets more
than 50% of the vote in more than 50% of the seats, and is therefore completely
invulnerable to efforts to
dislodge them by simply coalescing all the other parties' votes into a single,
totalitarian block. They can do
that if they want, but these machinations, however powerfully enforced, will NOT
affect the parliamentary seat total. The overall score will still be 51 seats
to 28 seats.
Yours truly,
Rod Smelser
John Corman
<rodney_...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>There is a table below that describes a scenario for a BC general election in
>the year 2000. It's a small table and I hope the columns stay put in this
>Email so that it can be read by everyone. It's a purely imaginative exercise,
>which I hope will point out that the 1996 election result, a narrow majority of
>just one seat, based on a 2% loss in the popular vote, is not by any means the
>most extreme type of result that could materialize.
There's some interesting side bars to this whole popularity of
parties issue. We hear that one candidate or other is equally as
popular as Campbell, for example. But how does that translate into
success in particular ridings? You suggest in you post that the NDP
will get 24 elected. I'm sure you would be including Nanaimo, Dale
Lovick's riding. Yet this pathetic little man is frightened to show
his face in his own riding.
I've been wrong before in these predictions, but for the NDP to get
into double figures in seats would be an event worthy of the history
books, much like the parting of the sea.
Rodney Smelser
> On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:25:33 -0800, Rodney Smelser
> <rodney_...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Tot the following:
> >> > What nonsense. There is no free speech in BC. The current hate crime
> >> > legislation brought in by your NDP compatriots can penalize someone for
> >> > thought much less speech.
>
> Rodney stated that>
> >These statements are not opinions, they are falsehoods. Smyth knows that. So
> >does everyone else.
> >Rod Smelser
> ======================================================
> You know Rodney, the post you're referring to is not that far off
> reality. Consider the recent UBC case of creating a "sexualized
> environments".
> We all know that nothing was done that was actually wrong. All that
> the Tribunal concluded was that it was reasonable to conclude that the
> perpetrator of the Human Rights offences must have been thinking of
> doing something wrong.
>
> It's getting pretty scary out there Rodney, in my opinion.
>
> John Corman ****** @server home.com
You can get the actual case at the HRT website, if you're interested. Your
comments are silly.
In the Mahmoodi/Dutton case you had two scoundrels and both got hurt. I think the
system actually worked here. Good shooting, I say.
Yours truly,
Rod Smelser
Rodney Smelser
purely imaginative exercise, which I hope will point out that the 1996 election
result, a narrow majority of just one seat, based on a 2% loss in the popular vote,
is not by any means the most extreme type of result that could materialize.
If a party is being aggressively and professionally smeared by the commercial mass
NOT affect the parliamentary seat total. It will still be 51 seats to 28 seats.
Yours truly,
Rod Smelser
neil kennedy
Oh you can read through the triangular eye holes in your sheet.
It's discouraging to see such visceral hatred from a female, but then
Magi may be a heroine to you.
Neil K
John Carrick
>>All Canadians are considered equal before the law,
>If only that were true. In fact, as some of our East Coast fishermen
>have recently discovered, it is not true.
You are somewhat confused again. The Supreme Court of Canada has
declared what the law is regarding the native fishery.
Don't mix up in your mind the fact that you disagree with the court,
with the fact that the natives fishermen are behaving legally.
In any society someone must have the responsibility of deciding what
the law is.
I hate to break the news to you this way, but in Canada that someone
is not you.
John Carrick
>Hey Neil, Easy now. There is no way in hell that Karen Gordons
>foreigener view is is right wing. You are insulting those of us who
>that of a small minded racist.
It is an unhappy fact that people who identify themselves as
"right-wingers", even if they are only *fiscal* conservatives,
and hold decent, socially liberal beliefs, are going to get tarred
with the "racist" brush from time to time.
Preston Manning has had to repudiate the positions of a number of
supporters of the Reform Party, when their poisonous racism came to
the surface.
This included his refusal to sign nomination papers on at least one
occasion ( a well known west coast broadcaster's), and disciplining
several of his Members of Parliament on others.
We are all judged by the company we keep - and at times that is highly
unfair. You must continue to be racially tolerant, and reject unfair
personal criticism.
John Carrick
>John Carrick (crs...@inforamp.net) writes:
>>> > I respectfully suggest that you make yourself familiar with Canadian
>>> > Hate Crime laws.
>
>>> [....cut of pious p/c crap]
>>> (K): And I respectfully suggest you stick it where the sun don't shine.
>>> Unless Ujjal Dosanjh is elected as BC's premier, we will have freedom of
>>> speech. Of course, if he's elected, that could change very quickly.
>
>> What nonsense. There is no free speech in BC. The current hate crime
>> legislation brought in by your NDP compatriots can penalize someone for
>> thought much less speech.
>
Hmmm. After reading the above, who can call *me* a nut?
These people are partisan extremists of the worst order.
There's a belief in the U.S. that since that nation's early days,
oddballs have kept moving west, when they have come up against
relative sanity. Eventually, they reached California, and there was
no place further west to go. As a result, that state has always had
a very high proportion of kooks and extremists.
When I read some of the exchanges from Britsh Columbians here,
I wonder if there isn't a doctoral thesis waiting to be written about
this "Go west young kook," phenomenon in a Canadian setting.
(Yes, it was Horace Greeley who said "Go west, young man.")
You are welcome.
John Corman
<rodney_...@bc.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>John Corman wrote:
>> You know Rodney, the post you're referring to is not that far off
>> reality. Consider the recent UBC case of creating a "sexualized
>> environments".
>> We all know that nothing was done that was actually wrong. All that
>> the Tribunal concluded was that it was reasonable to conclude that the
>> perpetrator of the Human Rights offences must have been thinking of
>> doing something wrong.
>>
>> It's getting pretty scary out there Rodney, in my opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>You can get the actual case at the HRT website, if you're interested. Your
>comments are silly.
>
>In the Mahmoodi/Dutton case you had two scoundrels and both got hurt. I think the
>system actually worked here. Good shooting, I say.
>Rod Smelser
==============================================================
Earth to Rodney. Two equal "scoundrels", as you put it with one
getting $13,000 and the other literally ruined for life. Ruined,
because it is assumed that he had vicious thoughts about having his
way with this Ms scoundrel.
You worry me sometimes, rodney.
Bob Davies
You know John, you should examine your posts more carefully before you
hit "Send". You are beginning to sound like me.
Read on...
John Carrick wrote:
>
> >John Carrick (crs...@inforamp.net) writes:
> >>> > I respectfully suggest that you make yourself familiar with Canadian
> >>> > Hate Crime laws.
> >Karen Gordon <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
> >>> [....cut of pious p/c crap]
> >>> (K): And I respectfully suggest you stick it where the sun don't shine.
> >>> Unless Ujjal Dosanjh is elected as BC's premier, we will have freedom of
> >>> speech. Of course, if he's elected, that could change very quickly.
The protagonists are of course referring to our "Thought Crime"
legislation which is administered by our favourite West Coast Tribunal -
the Human Rights Tribunal. One of many quasi judiciary Tribunals that
are not required to follow the rules of evidence - and sometimes
(often?) don't.
> >Ken Wiebe aka: PCCC3 aka: "Paige Smyth" (smyt...@rapidnet.net) writes:
> >> What nonsense. There is no free speech in BC. The current hate crime
> >> legislation brought in by your NDP compatriots can penalize someone for
> >> thought much less speech.
He's right - but Karen has a point? Who was the Nutter who foisted this
group of bleeding hearts upon our fair western shores?
> >(K): Which 'NDP compatriot' would you venture that was, Wiebe?
>
> Hmmm. After reading the above, who can call *me* a nut?
>
> These people are partisan extremists of the worst order.
We are in total agreement. Assuming we are referring to the same kooks
of course.
> There's a belief in the U.S. that since that nation's early days,
> oddballs have kept moving west, when they have come up against
> relative sanity. Eventually, they reached California, and there was
> no place further west to go. As a result, that state has always had
> a very high proportion of kooks and extremists.
The real nutters move north - to BC.
> When I read some of the exchanges from Britsh Columbians here,
> I wonder if there isn't a doctoral thesis waiting to be written about
> this "Go west young kook," phenomenon in a Canadian setting.
Boy have you got that right. I believe that most of them ended up in the
NDP (we won't even talk about Reform BC) - like Karen - and Alicia. You
may have another opinion. I assure you however, that my opinion can be
verified.
> (Yes, it was Horace Greeley who said "Go west, young man.")
> You are welcome.
it ain't called Lotusland and the "Left Coast" fo nuttin'.
The shoe fits - and it's worn very comfortably out here. That's why I
think it's a good place to be from. The sooner -- the better!
Bob Davies
That is the big difference between you and me John.
Rodney worries me all the time. I am afraid that others will begin to
think like him. Perhaps one of the women in the group can discuss the
sexualized atmosphere he creates and give him his own lesson - BTW -
they shouldn't let the truth get in the way of a great persecution - er
prosecution.
John Corman wrote:
> Earth to Rodney. Two equal "scoundrels", as you put it with one
> getting $13,000 and the other literally ruined for life. Ruined,
> because it is assumed that he had vicious thoughts about having his
> way with this Ms scoundrel.
> You worry me sometimes, rodney.
>
> John Corman ****** @server home.com
--
neil kennedy
Hey Neil, Easy now. There is no way in hell that Karen Gordons
>foreigener view is is right wing. You are insulting those of us who
>consider ourselves right wing. No call her paranoia for what it is,
>that of a small minded racist.
Sorry about that , I get carried away at times and put "all my
disagreements in the same basket"
I'll try to be more fair in the future.
I sit with my wrist slapped. Thank you for being gentle about it.
But you do see how her racist outburst leads one to anger, ( yes, I know
its no excuse. )
Neil
Honest John
wrote:
>There's a belief in the U.S. that since that nation's early days,
>oddballs have kept moving west, when they have come up against
>relative sanity. Eventually, they reached California, and there was
>no place further west to go. As a result, that state has always had
>a very high proportion of kooks and extremists.
A good friend of mine from San Diego claimed that they all collected
in the bottom right hand corner.
Honest John
wrote:
>
The statement was "All Canadians are considered equal before the law,"
I imply that to mean that the laws of the land treat everyone equally.
They do not.
A indian or eskimo can fish out of season, hunt out of season, avoid
paying taxes, go to a sweat lodge as "punishment" for a crime and so
on. A non-native doing the same things would be punished. The laws of
Canada are simply racist and unfair. How can you ignore this?
Deborah
>The statement was "All Canadians are considered equal before the law,"
>I imply that to mean that the laws of the land treat everyone equally.
>They do not.
>
>A indian or eskimo can fish out of season, hunt out of season, avoid
>paying taxes, go to a sweat lodge as "punishment" for a crime and so
>on. A non-native doing the same things would be punished. The laws of
>Canada are simply racist and unfair. How can you ignore this?
By remembering that the preamble in the Charter of Rights is general
while the section on Aboriginal Rights is particular. And the general
is subject to the particular.
Deborah
John Carrick
>>There's a belief in the U.S. that since that nation's early days,
>>oddballs have kept moving west, when they have come up against
>>relative sanity. Eventually, they reached California, and there was
>>no place further west to go. As a result, that state has always had
>>a very high proportion of kooks and extremists.
>A good friend of mine from San Diego claimed that they all collected
>in the bottom right hand corner.
So long as he didn't say a *LEFT* hand corner, I won't quarrel with
him.
(Not to be taken as a serious comment.)
Bob Davies
Here in BC we have Tribunals - they throw the rules of evidence out and
find you guilty - take your money -etc. Then they look at the facts. I
ask you - is this a problem?
I think the Indians had a better idea. The sweat lodge would be a better
idea.
If we let the NDP carry on "reorganizing" the justice system we will
have certain problems:
1. All of the businesses will be out of business.
2. Australia will be bereft of kangaroos.
3. Everyone will claim that they are a native person of Canada.
Let's be grateful that the federal NDP are not in power.
Honest John wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 02:20:06 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>>All Canadians are considered equal before the law,
> >
> >>If only that were true. In fact, as some of our East Coast fishermen
> >>have recently discovered, it is not true.
> >
> >You are somewhat confused again. The Supreme Court of Canada has
> >declared what the law is regarding the native fishery.
> >
> >Don't mix up in your mind the fact that you disagree with the court,
> >with the fact that the natives fishermen are behaving legally.
> >
> >In any society someone must have the responsibility of deciding what
> >the law is.
> >
> >I hate to break the news to you this way, but in Canada that someone
> >is not you.
>
> The statement was "All Canadians are considered equal before the law,"
> I imply that to mean that the laws of the land treat everyone equally.
> They do not.
>
> A indian or eskimo can fish out of season, hunt out of season, avoid
> paying taxes, go to a sweat lodge as "punishment" for a crime and so
> on. A non-native doing the same things would be punished. The laws of
> Canada are simply racist and unfair. How can you ignore this?
--
John Carrick
>>>>All Canadians are considered equal before the law,
>>
>>>If only that were true. In fact, as some of our East Coast fishermen
>>>have recently discovered, it is not true.
>>
>>You are somewhat confused again. The Supreme Court of Canada has
>>declared what the law is regarding the native fishery.
>>
>>Don't mix up in your mind the fact that you disagree with the court,
>>with the fact that the natives fishermen are behaving legally.
>>
>>In any society someone must have the responsibility of deciding what
>>the law is.
>>
>>I hate to break the news to you this way, but in Canada that someone
>>is not you.
>
>The statement was "All Canadians are considered equal before the law,"
>I imply that to mean that the laws of the land treat everyone equally.
>They do not.
They certainly do. Your confusion continues.
>A indian or eskimo ( Inuit, I think you mean) can fish out of season, hunt out of season, avoid
>paying taxes, go to a sweat lodge as "punishment" for a crime and so on. A non-native doing
> the same things would be punished. The laws of Canada are simply racist and unfair. How can
>you ignore this?
I am not ignoring anything.
I am saying that all Canadians are required to obey all Canadian laws.
What you are saying, but don't realize it is something quite
different.
You are saying that some of the laws that apply to all Canadians are
discriminatory.
That is *not* the same as saying that only some people must obey the
law. All of us must. We are all equal before the law.
As for your point that some laws favour some of us over others, I say
"A good thing too!" A blind person is allowed to take a seeing-eye
dog into public buildings, and I say, "Great!" A person living in
abject poverty is not called upon to pay income taxes, and I say "Fine
with me!"
I'm sure that hundreds of our laws cause people to be treated
differently according to their circumstances, and I would not have it
any other way.
Considering the unhappy circumstances of so many of our aboriginal
people, and the fact that we signed binding treaties with them, I have
no problem with them getting certain breaks.
But then I don't judge everything purely selfishly, as you do. I make
an attempt to look at things from the perspective of others, as you
never seem to do. It's an old habit of mine.
John Carrick
>
>>The statement was "All Canadians are considered equal before the law,"
>>I imply that to mean that the laws of the land treat everyone equally.
>>They do not.
>>
>>paying taxes, go to a sweat lodge as "punishment" for a crime and so
>>on. A non-native doing the same things would be punished. The laws of
>>Canada are simply racist and unfair. How can you ignore this?
>
>while the section on Aboriginal Rights is particular. And the general
>is subject to the particular.
>
>Deborah
Well put!
I doubt that your words will have any impact on your correspondent,
however. He is an extreme example of cognitive dissonance in
action. His brain does all of his thinking for him!
By that, I mean, of course, that any fact and idea that doesn't fit
easily into his world view never reaches his consciousness.
A cognitive scientist would say that "gates" in his brain drop before
he has a chance to consider points of view that differ from his own.
It is a fact that being a political ideologue, which he certainly is,
is not so much having a set of firm beliefs, as it is rejecting
outright all other theories, without giving them a moment's thought.
However, without cognitive dissonance there would be no function for
newsgroups, would there? Everyone would be open to logic and to new
ideas, rather than closed to them.
By the way, he will have no notion what I'm talking about in this
post. He thinks that "gates" are something found only at railway
crossings.
John Carrick
>From John Carrik:
Er...no. Nothing that John Carrick wrote is quoted below.
He would call himself "right-wing" only if you held a *very* large
caliber pistol to his temple. (J.C.)
>>Hey Neil, Easy now. There is no way in hell that Karen Gordons
>>foreigener view is is right wing. You are insulting those of us who
>>consider ourselves right wing. No call her paranoia for what it is,
>>that of a small minded racist.
Also he spells and punctuates better than this. <smile>
>Sorry about that , I get carried away at times and put "all my
>disagreements in the same basket"
> I'll try to be more fair in the future.
>I sit with my wrist slapped. Thank you for being gentle about it.
>But you do see how her racist outburst leads one to anger, ( yes, I know
>its no excuse. )
>
> Neil
No, I approve your anger over racism. It is something to get angry
about and stay angry about.
John C.
Anonymous
>BC judges cannot overrule the Supreme Court of Canada. THat is the final
>court, the end of the process.
May I suggest you contact Ujjal Dosanjh and ask him about this.
I doubt he would lie, because a lie, if it became public knowledge,
would most probably cost him any chance he had in the leadership race.
As to the subject matter, I read a letter that was written him which
detailed, not only one, but numerous instances of B.C. Supreme Court
Judges disregarding rulings of the Supreme Court. I checked the stated
facts, and it is an absolute certainty that what the writer claimed, was
definitely true.
neil kennedy
conservatives here to be "one".
When I responded to Bob Davis, to me it was the same as responding
to Ciceroii.
It was apparently a boo-boo on my part.
Can anyone come up with a program?
You know names and positions.
On second thought, you have to work that out for yourself; I need to do
more "home work".
Neil
Lars P Ormberg
> A cognitive scientist would say that "gates" in his brain drop before
> he has a chance to consider points of view that differ from his own.
You know nothing of cognitive science.
Reading half an issue of Scientific American and then forgetting 99% of what
you read makes you a lousy person to make diagnoses.
Especially since your "gates" are walls, failing to let in ANY information,
forcing you to spew the same garbage you exposed those poor kids to.
--
Lars P. Ormberg ICQ#:8827066
mailto:la...@ualberta.ca
The University of Lars: http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/
"The way you're bathed in light, reminds me of that night
God laid me down into your rose garden of trust and I was
swept away with nothin' left to say some helpless fool
yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace you're all I need to
find so when the time is right come to me sweetly, come
to me come to me..love will lead us, alright. love will
lead us, she will lead us. can you hear the dolphin's
cry? see the road rise up to meet us its in the air we
breathe tonight love will lead us, she will lead us"
-Live, "The Dolphin's Cry"
Paige Smyth
John Carrick <crs...@inforamp.net> wrote in message
news:38311f84...@news.psi.ca...
>
> >>>>All Canadians are considered equal before the law,
>
>
> What you are saying, but don't realize it is something quite
> different.
>
> You are saying that some of the laws that apply to all Canadians are
> discriminatory.
>
> That is *not* the same as saying that only some people must obey the
> law. All of us must. We are all equal before the law.
>
based dicrimination in the country is perfectly legal and within the laws of
the land. It is an exaggeration however to contend that alla persons are
treated equally by either the law enforcement agencies or the courts.
Anonymous
>On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 13:38:03 -0800, "Ken" <Ke...@bc.sympatica.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>BC judges cannot overrule the Supreme Court of Canada. THat is the final
>>court, the end of the process.
>
>More correctly, if they DO, it is grounds for appeal.
>
>Deborah
Maybe this is what the Judges in question were counting on. After all,
if the decision was overturned, the Legal Profession could claim that
'the system works', hoping that no one would notice that this is nothing
more than a 'make work project' for some Lawyer.
======================================================================
To reply via E-Mail, please replace "anonymous" with the correct names
in the appropriate locations.
======================================================================
Neil Tupper
neil kennedy <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:382BC1B8...@seascape.ns.ca...
> From John Carrik:
> Hey Neil, Easy now. There is no way in hell that Karen Gordons
> >foreigener view is is right wing. You are insulting those of us who
> >consider ourselves right wing. No call her paranoia for what it is,
> >that of a small minded racist.
>
> disagreements in the same basket"
> I'll try to be more fair in the future.
> I sit with my wrist slapped. Thank you for being gentle about it.
> But you do see how her racist outburst leads one to anger, ( yes, I know
> its no excuse. )
>
> Neil
Just to set the record straight, John Carrick did not post the first
paragraph quoted (as he himself has noted), and the "Neil" addressed by
the actual poster of that comment ("Van") was Neil Tupper, and not Neil
Kennedy
Neil (Tupper)
Paige Smyth
Bob Davies <mkt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3829976A...@hotmail.com...
>
> Personally I think Corky Evans should lead the NDP - he would be
> perfect.
>
Given recent tradition in Canadian politics the leader should probably be a
woman to join the ranks of Rita Johnson and Kim Campbell.
neil kennedy
blindness.
Neil K
Lars P Ormberg
> Honest John:
>
> Considering that Aboriginals - of all types seem to have certain bars in
> their way with regard to earning a living...
Only when on the reserve. None of these so-called "barriers" exist outside
of the reservation system.
As usual, only when held back by government law and kept silent by
government handouts, do people have trouble being successful.
Paige Smyth
the rank and file. What say comrade sisters, someperson step forward. This
may be the opportunity to go down in history. Ideally it would be a woman
who has not been elected to public office. Then the title could be "First
Woman to lead a political party to oblivion without ever being in the
legislature" It's got a nicering to it . don't you think?news:382BB286...@hotmail.com...
> Paige:
>
> Perhaps you missed my point so - I shall be very clear.
>
> I am not sure that the NDP have a woman as stupid as Corky that could be
> the leader they deserve. Need I say more?
Chris Steinbach
: Bob Davies <mkt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:3829976A...@hotmail.com...
:>
:> Personally I think Corky Evans should lead the NDP - he would be
:> perfect.
:>
Corky perfectly exemplifies the NDP philosophy, he built his house
without a foundation, or so the story goes.
- Christopher Steinbach
: Given recent tradition in Canadian politics the leader should probably be a
Chris Steinbach
Isn't there a law in BC that you have to be an MLA to be premier?
I guess that we'll have to wait for that title.
- Christopher Steinbach
: Oh I have confidence there's a woman stupid enough somewhere out there in
: the rank and file. What say comrade sisters, someperson step forward. This
: may be the opportunity to go down in history. Ideally it would be a woman
: who has not been elected to public office. Then the title could be "First
: Woman to lead a political party to oblivion without ever being in the
: legislature" It's got a nicering to it . don't you think?
: Bob Davies <mkt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:382BB286...@hotmail.com...
:> Paige:
:>
:> Perhaps you missed my point so - I shall be very clear.
:>
:> I am not sure that the NDP have a woman as stupid as Corky that could be
:> the leader they deserve. Need I say more?
:>
:>
:> Paige Smyth wrote:
:> >
:> > Bob Davies <mkt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
:> > news:3829976A...@hotmail.com...
:> > >
:> > > Personally I think Corky Evans should lead the NDP - he would be
:> > > perfect.
:> > >
:> > Given recent tradition in Canadian politics the leader should probably
: be a
:> > woman to join the ranks of Rita Johnson and Kim Campbell.
:>
:> --
neil kennedy
"pilar" of forgiveness. I'd better watch it before I get too far into
the woods. :)
Neil K
Dave 2
>
>
> ====================================================
> There's some interesting side bars to this whole popularity of
> parties issue. We hear that one candidate or other is equally as
> popular as Campbell, for example. But how does that translate into
> success in particular ridings? You suggest in you post that the NDP
> will get 24 elected.
Actually, he suggested that 51 NDP MLAs will get elected.
The table was a little garbled, but the gist was:
NDP 51 with 41.4% of the vote
Lib 24 with 48.7% of the vote
Ref 4 with 9.9% of the vote.
I'm not going to bother trying to figure out if such a thing is possible given
our current (new) boundaries. One would hope that they are fairly even. The
only other time I've heard of that happening to this degree was the 1966
Quebec provincial election.
(I suppose if the NDP could move all their supporters into 40 ridings, in such
a way that they would win those 40 ridings by one vote... :)
Rod's table follows
Scenario for a BC General Election 2000
NDP Seats Liberal Seats Reform Seats BC Total
Number of Seats 51 24 4
79
Average Total Vote
in Party's Ridings 20,000 24,333 22,000 21,418
NDP % 55.1% 21.6% 15.0% 41.4%
Lib % 39.5% 66.1% 40.0% 48.7%
Ref % 5.4% 12.4% 45.0% 9.9%
Total Votes
in Party's Ridings 1,020,000 584,000 88,000 1,692,000
Total NDP Votes 561,600 126,000 13,200 700,800
Total Lib Votes 403,000 385,800 35,200 824,000
Total Ref Votes 55,400 72,200 39,600 167,200
--
Happiness is a fresh TripTik.
Warning: Address has been modified.
Randy Wittchen
>
> On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 02:20:06 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick)
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> I imply that to mean that the laws of the land treat everyone equally.
> They do not.
>
> A indian or eskimo can fish out of season, hunt out of season, avoid
> paying taxes, go to a sweat lodge as "punishment" for a crime and so
> on. A non-native doing the same things would be punished. The laws of
> Canada are simply racist and unfair. How can you ignore this?
Hi "Honest"
The actual wording from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is:
" 15.(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and
has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law
without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based
on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental
or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity
that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged
individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of
race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or
physical disability."
As Chief Justice McEachern notes in his "Legal Compendium" at
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/LegalCompendium/section_15.htm
"Although s. 15 provides the broadest and most fundamental guarantee
against discrimination in the Charter, other sections are also important
in this regard. For example, section 27 provides that the Charter should
be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and
enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians. Section 28
expressly states that any rights and freedoms referred to in the Charter
are guaranteed equally to males and females."
AND:
"Section 15(2) indicates that affirmative action programs do not violate
the principle of equality enshrined in the Charter. In other words, it
will sometimes be necessary to provide different treatment to certain
individuals or groups in order to ameliorate or avoid further
discrimination. Thus, s. 15(2) is often viewed as explaining and
enhancing s. 15(1).11
Neither the Supreme Court of Canada nor the British Columbia Court of
Appeal has yet ruled on any case that specifically turns on s. 15(2).
However, when the Supreme Court of Canada has mentioned s. 15(2), it has
suggested that, in order to fall under s. 15(2), a program need only
have the goal of ameliorating conditions of disadvantage."
The Charter also recognizes and affirms the existing aboriginal and
treaty rights of the aboriginal people at s.35.
Randy Wittchen
Bob Davies
Considering that Aboriginals - of all types seem to have certain bars in
their way with regard to earning a living...
How can we deal with this? I see the problem to be one of fairness. We
have to admit there are at least some bars. Let's assume we want the
bars to participation in the economy - for the near term. Let us assume
that in the near future we want the same laws applied to everyone - and
the bars to disappear as well.
1. Can we accomplish this?
2. If so when?
3. If not why not?
4. Should we do the above? Is there a better alternative? (That some of
us are overlooking.)
The situation is satisfactory fo no one. I don't think the Nisga'a
treaty resolved anything - I think it may have made some things worse.
(Apartheid.)
What are your thoughts?
Honest John wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 02:20:06 GMT, crs...@inforamp.net (John Carrick)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>>All Canadians are considered equal before the law,
> >
> >>If only that were true. In fact, as some of our East Coast fishermen
> >>have recently discovered, it is not true.
> >
> >You are somewhat confused again. The Supreme Court of Canada has
> >declared what the law is regarding the native fishery.
> >
> >Don't mix up in your mind the fact that you disagree with the court,
> >with the fact that the natives fishermen are behaving legally.
> >
> >In any society someone must have the responsibility of deciding what
> >the law is.
> >
> >I hate to break the news to you this way, but in Canada that someone
> >is not you.
>
> The statement was "All Canadians are considered equal before the law,"
> I imply that to mean that the laws of the land treat everyone equally.
> They do not.
>
> A indian or eskimo can fish out of season, hunt out of season, avoid
> paying taxes, go to a sweat lodge as "punishment" for a crime and so
> on. A non-native doing the same things would be punished. The laws of
> Canada are simply racist and unfair. How can you ignore this?
--
Bob Davies
Could we get an exchange of ideas - then as soon as the ideas harden we
can fling whatever we want. While John did insult HJ - put that aside
for half a dozen posts and make a couple of suggestions. People in BC
will suffer greatly if we do not find workable solutions - that all can
live with.
Lars P Ormberg wrote:
>
> As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw John Carrick write:
>
> > A cognitive scientist would say that "gates" in his brain drop before
> > he has a chance to consider points of view that differ from his own.
>
> You know nothing of cognitive science.
>
> Reading half an issue of Scientific American and then forgetting 99% of what
> you read makes you a lousy person to make diagnoses.
>
> Especially since your "gates" are walls, failing to let in ANY information,
> forcing you to spew the same garbage you exposed those poor kids to.
>
> --
> Lars P. Ormberg ICQ#:8827066
> mailto:la...@ualberta.ca
> The University of Lars: http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/
>
> "The way you're bathed in light, reminds me of that night
> God laid me down into your rose garden of trust and I was
> swept away with nothin' left to say some helpless fool
> yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace you're all I need to
> find so when the time is right come to me sweetly, come
> to me come to me..love will lead us, alright. love will
> lead us, she will lead us. can you hear the dolphin's
> cry? see the road rise up to meet us its in the air we
> breathe tonight love will lead us, she will lead us"
> -Live, "The Dolphin's Cry"
--
Bob Davies
Egalitarian - I have been told that I am the latter to a fault - until I
am disappointed - then apparently my language becomes unprintable.
--
Bob Davies
Perhaps you missed my point so - I shall be very clear.
I am not sure that the NDP have a woman as stupid as Corky that could be
the leader they deserve. Need I say more?
Paige Smyth wrote:
>
> Bob Davies <mkt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3829976A...@hotmail.com...
> >
> > Personally I think Corky Evans should lead the NDP - he would be
> > perfect.
> >
> Given recent tradition in Canadian politics the leader should probably be a
> woman to join the ranks of Rita Johnson and Kim Campbell.
--
Bob Davies
Perhaps Nostradmus discussed her. I like John Donne better myself.
--
E. Barry Bruyea
wrote:
>
Actually, Santa Monica is considered the 'Magnetic Left' of the Golden
State.
EBB
Van
wrote:
>
>>From John Carrik:
>
>Er...no. Nothing that John Carrick wrote is quoted below.
>
>He would call himself "right-wing" only if you held a *very* large
>caliber pistol to his temple. (J.C.)
>
>>>Hey Neil, Easy now. There is no way in hell that Karen Gordons
>>>foreigener view is is right wing. You are insulting those of us who
>>>consider ourselves right wing. No call her paranoia for what it is,
>>>that of a small minded racist.
>
>Also he spells and punctuates better than this. <smile>
>
>>Sorry about that , I get carried away at times and put "all my
>>disagreements in the same basket"
>> I'll try to be more fair in the future.
>>I sit with my wrist slapped. Thank you for being gentle about it.
>>But you do see how her racist outburst leads one to anger, ( yes, I know
>>its no excuse. )
>>
>> Neil
>
>No, I approve your anger over racism. It is something to get angry
>about and stay angry about.
>John C.
I agree that one should get very angry over rascist's comments and
actions.. However one has to be careful and not paint everyone (right
wingers) with the same brush. No problem Niel I enjoy most of your
posts. Btw John I didn't know that we were writing a spelling test.
Neil got the point that not all right wingers think like KKK
Karen.That is the point I was making. FYI I also tore up my reform
mmembership a good number of years ago which I mentioned here some
time ago.
Bob Davies
Well - I'm kind of at a loss for words. Perhaps you're right - what a
frightening prospect. Perhaps it's time to move to Calgary or Seattle or
anywhere but here?
Paige Smyth wrote:
>
> Oh I have confidence there's a woman stupid enough somewhere out there in
> the rank and file. What say comrade sisters, some person step forward. This
> may be the opportunity to go down in history. Ideally it would be a woman
> who has not been elected to public office. Then the title could be "First
> Woman to lead a political party to oblivion without ever being in the
> legislature" It's got a nice ring to it. don't you think?
Well I just find the idea very frightening. I was making remarks in
Jest. The thought that it might happen...? What can I say...?
Shudder...! The very idea that a party would select on grounds of
stupidity - well it's just too frightening for words.
> Bob Davies <mkt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:382BB286...@hotmail.com...
> > Paige:
> >
> > Perhaps you missed my point so - I shall be very clear.
> >
> > I am not sure that the NDP have a woman as stupid as Corky that could be
> > the leader they deserve. Need I say more?
> >
> >
> > Paige Smyth wrote:
> > >
> > > Bob Davies <mkt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3829976A...@hotmail.com...
> > > >
> > > > Personally I think Corky Evans should lead the NDP - he would be
> > > > perfect.
> > > >
> > > Given recent tradition in Canadian politics the leader should probably
> be a
> > > woman to join the ranks of Rita Johnson and Kim Campbell.
> >
Erik Schild
Deborah wrote:
> What is the matter with you? I haven't been arguing that James
> Douglas wasn't non-white. I conceded that as soon as it was
> mentioned.
>
> If you think the HBC had anything formally to do with BC becoming
> British territory, you are certifiable. The HBC was a business. Not
> an arm of the state. It had no authority to act on behalf of the
> Queen.
The British Empire was here before the HBC. The NWC was here before the
HBC.
However, in those days companies with Royal Charters did act on behalf of
the sovereign. They claimed ground in the name of the ruler.
What am I certifiable as?
E.Schild
esc...@uniserve.com
Deborah
Rodney Smelser
> Paige:
>
> Perhaps you missed my point so - I shall be very clear.
>
> I am not sure that the NDP have a woman as stupid as Corky that could be
> the leader they deserve. Need I say more?
Your assessment of Evans could hardly be more in error. A few weeks ago I
attended a fundraising dinner at the Pitt Meadows Recreation Hall where
Agriculture Minister Corky Evans was the guest speaker. There were several
representatives of the farm community who were not NDP supporters.
Evans explained that on becoming Agriculture Minister the bureaucrats suggested
he attend some NAFTA meetings. At first he wasn't interested, but they
persisted. He agreed to attend a meeting of sub-national governments, Canadian
provinces and Mexican and US states. Both the Canadian and Mexican ministers of
agriculture signalled their intention to engage in volume specialization and
aggressive price competition to meet the enhanced competitive environment of
NAFTA. The US official basically stated that they would be increasing production
with the widespread application of new technologies and would be seeking
continual rule changes at the WTO in order to ensure ever increasing export
volumes for the US, at steadily decreasing prices.
BC agricultural producers have fixed on a different strategy, one of niche
markets, quality products, and a more organic approach that eschews chemicals,
genetics, hormones and the like.
It reminded me of remarks made by UBC Commerce Professor Michael Goldberg, that
the best way to increase BC's GDP is through value added approaches rather than
commodity production and price competition through ever intensifying cost
reductions, which translate into lower incomes for BC residents.
Yours truly,
Rod Smelser
Rodney Smelser
Erik Schild
neil kennedy <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote:
news:382B9D6A...@seascape.ns.ca...
> Karen Gorden asks: "What are KKKites?"
> Oh you can read through the triangular eye holes in your sheet.
> It's discouraging to see such visceral hatred from a female, but then
> Magi may be a heroine to you.
No reason to bash men, Neil. Are men simply more nasty than women, or are
they just more visceral?
If usenet was a telephone convergence of opinions do you think there might
be more women?
E.Schild
esc...@uniserve.com
Lars P Ormberg
> Lars:
>
> Could we get an exchange of ideas
First time dealing with Carrick? You can't "exchange" ideas with him
because he has no ideas in the first place. And no biological system in his
anatomy that allows him to process incoming information. So its all a waste.
> can fling whatever we want. While John did insult HJ
There are easy thousands of names you can add to the list.
What you cannot compile is a list of people he's debated with. Because its
empty.
Bob Davies
You are CERTIFIABLE as someone who reads history and pays attention.
I have the same recollection of HBC and NWC. However, it could be
mistaken. Have we any historians in the group?
--
Ba
>And the bottom line: Why would east indians - Sikhs - sign up by the
>thousands to ensure the election of one of their own culture?
>
>Any guesses?
Since this is Ms. Gordon's bottom line it is the only line in her post I will
resond to, thus. Yes, perhaps they would. Same as redneck Christian yokels
sign up to support Reform, the Conservatives, or the now defunct Social
Credit. So what if Mr. Dosanjh was not born in Canada. Beware, Ms. Gordon that
in My opinion no one who was not born in B.C. would be permitted to live here,
but there I go being a redneck yokel. Mr. Dosanjh has my overwhelming support
as being the best candidate offered to date, ignoring the fact that he belongs
to the NDP. Vive l'separitiste de Columbia Brittanique !!!!