that was harsh, I need your support

[rahulk9]

I thought you were going to ignore my posts.

Rahul I would suggest that you don't waste your time on a self-centered individual. The person has time and again proved his tunnel vision and how limited his knowledge is.

 

[david1697]

One of the biggest problems new settlers in Canada face is lack of skilled jobs , which forces them to take survival jobs in order to be able to eat and pay for a roof over their heads.

The problems are as following:

1. Extreme scarcity of white collar jobs. This often results in hundreds of desperate job applicants applying for the same vacancy.
2. Oversupply of skilled labor. Ironically, while there is an ever increasing scarcity of jobs the number of skilled immigrants coming to Canada is kept at all high.
3. Flight of profitable companies from Canada. This is due to inequality in wages, between Canada and third world countries where labor is dirt cheap.
4. Resulting from 1,2,3 corruption of the culture, where you have to "network" to have your resume looked at as opposed to ending in a black hole.

Above are serious problems, especially 1,2 and 3 (4 is the consequence of above).

Alas, this is the reality new immigrants trying to settle in Canada face today. And, clearly, these are issues that are directly related to economics.

Hopefully, by speaking our minds and getting our voices heard we can accelerate the process whereby enough number of people realize that effective measures need to be taken to fix and turn around the failing economy, which hurts everyone to equal degree, newcomers and natives alike.

I invite everyone share their opinions, openly and freely, without engaging in name calling and personal attacks.

All the best!

 

[rahul20978]

By the way, that last of comment of yours was personal, not political. You get in plenty of personal jibes in your so-called "political free speech". What merits? What arguments? Canada has a bad economy right now? We all get that. Is stopping immigration the only way to revive it? That's your claim, but I don't agree. Creation of jobs is more important, and a better way to revive the economy. Jobs have fled Canada? Some changes in restrictive business laws and trade laws have to be implemented. The moment the economy recovers, a large number of baby-boomers are going to retire, because they can afford to retire and enjoy the much-vaunted Canadian lifestyle (that number is projected to be in the millions). When that happens, there are not going to be enough people to fill the old jobs as well as the newly created ones (which is the only long-term solution to reviving the economy). It's a big world out there, with opportunities all over the place. Not every place is easy to get into or easy to stay and work in. It requires people of a certain type of mind-set to go to those places and do those jobs. Immigrants, for example, who are willing to move half way across the world, away from everything familiar, in search of a good life. Canadian businesses can spread their wings and enter markets heretofore closed off to them, closed simply because they can't find people in Canada, who'll go to those places and do those jobs (and here, I am talking about technical, skilled jobs, not McDonalds or sweeping the floors). People like some David, sitting in the USA and whining, who doesn't even want to jeopardise his nice secure job in the US in order to spend enough time on the ground in Canada (his "dream country", by the way) so that he may get a job there; would people like him actually go to other countries (developing countries, third world countries, whatever) to do those kinds of jobs? It is a global economy, people, and if you try to limit it to a local one, you are going to get shut out of the system. You need to get out there and play.
Yes, the government need to create a conducive environment for Canadian businesses to think global (and not just the tech firms either). But with the same old politicians voted into the same old posts by the same old citizens with the same old mind-set is not going to change anything. Canadian born citizens, and even older immigrants who went to Canada in its heyday, are too entrenched in the old ways and the old attitudes. It's only with new ideas, and a more global perspective that Canadian businesses can go truly global, and only then can the economy revive. I have seen my country go from being a licence Raj, bowed down and cowed down by unions go on to become a global economy. We have a billion strong people, at least 60% of whom are employed and manage to get three squares a day. And that 60% amounts to more than twice the entire Canadian population. Banana republic?? I think not.

 

[RocketCity]

But no one has a right to come and start a personal attack or coerce the other into silence because they disagree with the political opinions (or opinion about economy) of the opponent. There is a right to express opinion about any (non-personal) subject, but no such right exists to insult and coerce into silence anyone who expresses those opinions.
Perhaps too complex a concept for you to comprehend, but very obvious one nevertheless.

Here in US we have no owners, no superiors and no individuals telling us what to think or what to say. Since people here are free people and accustomed to certain way of life, I don't fathom how anyone dares to interfere and coerce someone else to keep quite and not express their thoughts which they disagree with.
In any event, you will have to live with it. Here in our country we have the right to express any opinion, even if they are personal attacks or even hate/racist speech.

 

[david1697]

Here in US we have no owners, no superiors and no individuals telling us what to think or what to say. Since people here are free people and accustomed to certain way of life, I don't fathom how anyone dares to interfere and coerce someone else to keep quite and not express their thoughts which they disagree with.
In any event, you will have to live with it. Here in our country we have the right to express any opinion, even if they are personal attacks or even hate/racist speech.

One of my legal classes was a "US Constitution" and it was about Constitutional Rights (in Canada there is Charter of Rights).

While US law has less restrictions (for example First Amendment has no "reasonable limits" clause and, subsequently, there is no degree of free speech that can be restricted on the speculative grounds of where the "reasonable limit" line is), yet it does not entitle anyone to limitless exercise and abuse of such right.

For example, you can't go to movie theater and scream "Fire!", causing panic and mayhem. Also, Supreme Court ruled on "fighting words", which means you can't go around and call people names and obscene words that would provoke even a reasonable person to a physical response (we studied a case when someone used obscene words related to intimate intercourse and mother of the person it was addressed to, which resulted in a blow to a face of the insulting party. Courts ruled in favor of cursed party and said that "fighting words" are not protected speech).
Also restricted under our law are words causing violence, death and destruction (Cosa Nostra mafia head can't verbally order assassination of the enemy, and then claim in court that he didn't do it , just spoke what the thought. You can't as well stand on a soap box, gather people around you , enrage them and cause them to start a riot, burn cars and cause other destruction and violence. Under the law you could be held personally liable for causing such mayhem).

But who is advocating here for such abuse of rights and who is crossing the line here?

If anything, I make a clear distinction between free political speech and personal attacks, and demand that those who disagree with me express their disagreement on merits of the argument rather than resort to name calling, bullying tactics and vitriolic replies full of venom and ad hominems. aimed at coercing me into silence.

 

[RocketCity]

One of my legal classes was a "US Constitution" and it was about Constitutional Rights (in Canada there is Charter of Rights).

While US law has less restrictions (for example First Amendment has no "reasonable limits" clause and, subsequently, there is no degree of free speech that can be restricted on the speculative grounds of where the "reasonable limit" line is), yet it does not entitle anyone to limitless exercise and abuse of such right.

For example, you can't go to movie theater and scream "Fire!", causing panic and mayhem. Also, Supreme Court ruled on "fighting words", which means you can't go around and call people names and obscene words that would provoke even a reasonable person to a physical response (we studied a case when someone used obscene words related to intimate intercourse and mother of the person it was addressed to, which resulted in a blow to a face of the insulting party. Courts ruled in favor of cursed party and said that "fighting words" are not protected speech).
Also restricted under our law are words causing violence, death and destruction (Cosa Nostra mafia head can't verbally order assassination of the enemy, and then claim in court that he didn't do it , just spoke what the thought. You can't as well stand on a soap box, gather people around you , enrage them and cause them to start a riot, burn cars and cause other destruction and violence. Under the law you could be held personally liable for causing such mayhem).

But who is advocating here for such abuse of rights and who is crossing the line here?

If anything, I make a clear distinction between free political speech and personal attacks, and demand that those who disagree with me express their disagreement on merits of the argument rather than resort to name calling, bullying tactics and vitriolic replies full of venom and ad hominems. aimed at coercing me into silence.

And none of that is relevant to any of the posts on this forum.