which is better australia or canada?

[toby]

Tarakrs said that Calgary is as warm as Toronto. That surprises me, given that the latitude is higher. I hear, too, that the summers (my favourite season) are much shorter in Calgary than in Toronto.

On the question of racism in both countries, I have the sense that nationalism is stronger in Australia than in Canada. This can be a good thing, witness the courage of the Australian Prime Minister who declared that immigrants who ask permission to come to Australia are welcome to enjoy the aspects of the country that attracted them in the first place. But if they come to Australia and immediately start agitating for change, then they are free to exercise another Australian right, and leave the country.

I applauded that courage, that willingness to stand for something, instead of the meek avoid-controvery-at-all-costs posture I see so often in Canadian politics.

But nationalism can cross an invisible line and become prejudice (racism by another name), which is not pretty.

Since I am a white male Caucasian ( a disappearing breed, I might say), it is easy for me to admire Australian nationalism, but my tune might change were I an ethnic exposed to discrimination.

I feel for those who live with respect for others in a new land, but are discriminated against. I detest those who come to a new land and want not only to import their own culture, but impose it on their hosts (pressing for changes in Law etc).

I like Canada as it is (except for government!! But that's a different issue.). I don't want to see immigrants trying to change it too much. I want politicians to re-discover their backbones and draw the line: small changes are OK; major changes to the basic country are not OK.

If you ask me for an example, I'd cite an issue already lost (for me): the permission for Sikhs to wear ceremonial headgear in courtrooms. At the risk of attracting lots of criticism, I think the interests of security on the courtroom (the headgear could be a hiding place for weapons, like daggers) outweighs the desire to accommodate someone's home culture. But Canada caved in, and once done, it is a slippery slope to adjusting to every vocal activist group, every squeaky wheel with an axe to grind (if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor).

Canada must decide whether there is a basic "Canada" to be preserved, or whether it will -- like many European countries already have -- adapt so much and so often that the original country is lost under the onslaught of waves of immigration and cultural change. Canadian politicians have not -- so far -- found the backbone to make the sensible decisions that Australia has.

At the end of the day, I have to ask why would immigrants want to come to Canada, many escaping from their homelands, and then try to make Canada into a copy of the home countries they wanted to leave? And I wonder why Australians want to immigrate to Canada? WHY!!??

 

[ADUFE]

At the end of the day, I have to ask why would immigrants want to come to Canada, many escaping from their homelands, and then try to make Canada into a copy of the home countries they wanted to leave? And I wonder why Australians want to immigrate to Canada? WHY!!??

By the same token; why did the first European invaders leave their continent to come to Canada, snatch the country away from the indigenous population and then make into a copy of their home countries in Europe?!
Would really love to hear your response to this question.. ;D

 

[jnathan]

Australia has a solid economy and more closer to China and South East Asia.
They have not gone into Recession like US and Canada.

 

[harry_aussie]

Australia for sure has a stronger economy and wages are higher here. Only thing i dont like here in Australia is the house prices... In simple words unaffordable. My wife lives in Canada and we discuss pros and cons. I will never move to Canada if i get a chance to own a house here soon. Another reason to move from Australia is that here government does not believe in family unification. If i have to call my parents to stay with me permanently and with 3 or 4 years wait, i have to give the Immigration department about $40000...........wow $40000 per parent. and that's a ripper....... In the end i love all these three countries, Long live Australia, Canada and India.

 

[toby]

An excellent question that opens up a very large, complex, and controversial topic.

The short answer is that the Europeans came to North America as conquerors, while immigrants ask to come here. Conquerors can dictate their terms, while supplicants are in no moral position to place demands on their hosts (Canadians in this case).

But this question has become highly charged with emotions in Canada, and I think that people’s judgments have been clouded.

Let me give you my view. Were the Europeans right or wrong to impose their terms on the natives? (Is it still OK to say “natives”, or have the forces of political correctness outlawed that word too?) Or should the Europeans fit in out of respect for the native culture that existed when the Europeans arrived, perhaps trading shoes for moccasins, rifles for bows and arrows?

The Europeans elected not to fit in, and we non-natives have been feeling guilty about it, and paying for it, ever since. The budget of the Department responsible for native affairs is billions of dollars each year.

But if the Europeans were wrong, that doesn’t mean that the First Nations were morally right. They had not been in Canada from time immemorial; they had -- a few hundred years earlier -- conquered (and imposed their own culture on) other native people who were here at the time. And those “other native people” had in their own time conquered still other natives. And on and on, further and further back into time until we arrive at the true, first natives.

Who were they? We don’t know; we get glimpses now and then when an archeologist discovers a relic or bone that fills in a gap in our knowledge. But we do know for a certainty that the current First Nations people were not here first, that they were conquerors in their time, just as much as the Europeans were, so all moral superiority and inferiority becomes a moot point.

Once we realize that here are no white hats, no black hats, we can accept that conquerors have the right to impose their culture if they wish; conquerors always have had that right. We can accept, too, that supplicants, immigrants, who are NOT conquerors, do not have that right.

 

[harry_aussie]

Dear Toby, you are right and i believe that anyone who leave their own country and adopts other should not be so demanding. I am an Indian and Sikh by faith although i dont put on a turban but i see no harm in allowing somone to have a religious symbol in any department. I oppose the formation of our own separate community gangs and start living our background life. As immigrants we beg for a visa and that is why it is granted. Immigrants dont need to live saparately( what usualy we do), what we need to do is educate the people of our adopted land that our belief would not harm them or their culture and we are very much open and welcoming to their ideas.

 

[toby]

Dear Toby, you are right and i believe that anyone who leave their own country and adopts other should not be so demanding. I am an Indian and Sikh by faith although i dont put on a turban but i see no harm in allowing somone to have a religious symbol in any department. I oppose the formation of our own separate community gangs and start living our background life. As immigrants we beg for a visa and that is why it is granted. Immigrants dont need to live saparately( what usualy we do), what we need to do is educate the people of our adopted land that our belief would not harm them or their culture and we are very much open and welcoming to their ideas.

And you seem -- if I may voice a personal opinion -- to be the type of immigrant Canada wants and needs. Going further into the question of religious symbols, I have absolutely no problem with turbans per se, but I believe that Sikhs should be prepared to leave them off while in court (for the reason that a turban might be used to hide a knife or other weapon). I rather enjoy seeing ethnic diversity -- different cuisine, clothes, etc -- when I am in Canada.

 

[harry_aussie]

Dear Toby, I still support your ideas and they are 1000% right from security point of view. I dont have any religious symbol on me but insted of government being blunt and ordering removing of turbans or any other religious symbol, very firm instructions should be passed on to the authoriities which demand very thorough checking or removal of those symbols. This way both security issue will be solved and religious sentiments wont be hurt. I very much agree with you that religious ideas should not overpower the government.

 

[ADUFE]

An excellent question that opens up a very large, complex, and controversial topic.

The short answer is that the Europeans came to North America as conquerors, while immigrants ask to come here. Conquerors can dictate their terms, while supplicants are in no moral position to place demands on their hosts (Canadians in this case).

But this question has become highly charged with emotions in Canada, and I think that people's judgments have been clouded.

Let me give you my view. Were the Europeans right or wrong to impose their terms on the natives? (Is it still OK to say “natives”, or have the forces of political correctness outlawed that word too?) Or should the Europeans fit in out of respect for the native culture that existed when the Europeans arrived, perhaps trading shoes for moccasins, rifles for bows and arrows?

The Europeans elected not to fit in, and we non-natives have been feeling guilty about it, and paying for it, ever since. The budget of the Department responsible for native affairs is billions of dollars each year.

But if the Europeans were wrong, that doesn't mean that the First Nations were morally right. They had not been in Canada from time immemorial; they had -- a few hundred years earlier -- conquered (and imposed their own culture on) other native people who were here at the time. And those “other native people” had in their own time conquered still other natives. And on and on, further and further back into time until we arrive at the true, first natives.

Who were they? We don't know; we get glimpses now and then when an archeologist discovers a relic or bone that fills in a gap in our knowledge. But we do know for a certainty that the current First Nations people were not here first, that they were conquerors in their time, just as much as the Europeans were, so all moral superiority and inferiority becomes a moot point.

Once we realize that here are no white hats, no black hats, we can accept that conquerors have the right to impose their culture if they wish; conquerors always have had that right. We can accept, too, that supplicants, immigrants, who are NOT conquerors, do not have that right.

So who made it Ok for conquerors to do as they liked? And what makes it wrong for so called "supplicants" to ask for what they feel is their right ? Afterall Canada is "MULTICULTURAL" which implies that different cultures are welcome or is there something I'm missing here?

More importantly, the world is not static, conquerors in time become the conquered and the fact of the matter is that globally the caucasian population is dropping at a very rapid rate and very soon most western countries especially those in North America will have majority non-caucasian populations.Once that happens you can bet the western way of life which they imposed on the indigenous population will slowly but surely give way to that of the main population, whoever they may be.

Lastly, your take about how the indigenous population were not the original inhabitants of America is just pure conjecture put out by some unsrupulous scientists to justify taking land from these same people. The fact of the matter is that these people had been there for tens of thousands of years before the invaders arrived and while some scientists theorize that they migrated from Asia thousands (and not hundreds as written by you), they have not been able to conclusively prove it which is why it remains a theory..

 

[ADUFE]

And you seem -- if I may voice a personal opinion -- to be the type of immigrant Canada wants and needs. Going further into the question of religious symbols, I have absolutely no problem with turbans per se, but I believe that Sikhs should be prepared to leave them off while in court (for the reason that a turban might be used to hide a knife or other weapon). I rather enjoy seeing ethnic diversity -- different cuisine, clothes, etc -- when I am in Canada.

Surely placing a metal detector at the entrance of the court house should be enough to prevent any security breach. After all there are a number of other places where a knife, guns etc can be place including pockets, underwear etc; so will it be ok for everyone to go through a strip-search at the court house just to ensure no one is carrying a weapon? Your logic is very flawed IMO....

 

[toby]

Using metal detectors is a good idea. I wonder, now, why this was not proposed in the original debate. Can't remember; too long ago.

But yes, in the absence of metal detectors, I favor everyone stripping down and entering courtrooms naked. Good suggestion.

 

[harry_aussie]

Here in Australia everything is scanned before they let you in the courtroom. I have firsthand experience of this due to a friend of mine ( caught high range drink driving ). I think this must be done in Canada too.

 

[toby]

ADUFE:

The quote feature is not working for me, so I am reproducing your query and then replying here.

You:
So who made it Ok for conquerors to do as they liked? And what makes it wrong for so called "supplicants" to ask for what they feel is their right ? Afterall Canada is "MULTICULTURAL" which implies that different cultures are welcome or is there something I'm missing here?

Me:
No, you’re not missing anything. It’s very confusing terrain we are walking on here: unless we agree on a higher authority to determine what is (morally) right, it is your subjective opinion against mine what is right and what is wrong, with no way to declare a winner except perhaps by jury vote or something similar. My point was that when it comes to one society conquering another, history shows that the conquerors ruled. There was nothing “right” about; it was just the brutal reality. And so I argued that immigrants are the opposite of conquerors, and therefore have no claim to the historical right of conquerors to demand changes from the conquered. Apply this principle to our situation today, and I feel that immigrants have no right to demand (wholesale) changes from the host country.

That’s all I was trying to say.

And before I get into a longer argument here, let me compliment you for asking some good questions. It’s good for everyone, me included, to question his beliefs every so often.

You:
More importantly, the world is not static, conquerors in time become the conquered and the fact of the matter is that globally the caucasian population is dropping at a very rapid rate and very soon most western countries especially those in North America will have majority non-caucasian populations.Once that happens you can bet the western way of life which they imposed on the indigenous population will slowly but surely give way to that of the main population, whoever they may be.

Me:
That’s a very good point. It’s like being conquered by degrees, by stealth. Apparently that is happening in Holland, and certain neighbourhoods in London, where the “original society” has all but disappeared – according to those who come from those countries. I don’t speak from personal experience here.

Is this trend inevitable? Probably, as you say. For example, birth rates in Muslim nations are higher than in the populations of the so-called developed countries, like Canada. And if Muslims keep immigrating, eventually they will be the majority, and Canada as we know it will no longer exist.

But is it desirable? (Let’s avoid debating what is right; it is a swamp from which we will never emerge in our lifetime). Well, not desirable to me, at any rate. If I want to live in an Arabic culture I will go to an Arabic country. If I want to live in a Sharia society, I will go to Saudia Arabia, for one example. And if I want to live in a white and/or Christian society, I can come to the USA, Australia or Canada.

But if we let waves of immigrants come and then transform our culture into theirs, there will be less and less cultural diversity to enjoy; all countries will adopt the cultures of the most populous people.


You:
Lastly, your take about how the indigenous population were not the original inhabitants of America is just pure conjecture put out by some unsrupulous scientists to justify taking land from these same people. The fact of the matter is that these people had been there for tens of thousands of years before the invaders arrived and while some scientists theorize that they migrated from Asia thousands (and not hundreds as written by you), they have not been able to conclusively prove it which is why it remains a theory..

Me:
Here I think you are on weak ground. You are dismissing a wealth of scientific evidence (bones, excavations, carbon dating, etc etc). Sure, the evidence is not conclusive, and scientists are constantly revising their histories, but they are revising the fine points, not the main “theory” that there were successive waves of immigration into North America, and that humans originated in the ancient region of Mesopotamia, in Africa.

Besides, you can’t support your view simply by discrediting someone else’s. You need evidence of your own.

And even if you doubt this theory, there is oral evidence given by (e.g.) Huron Indians to the British about how they were beaten by the fierce Iroquois in battle, and forced to move to other land. But of course if you want to reach a different conclusion, that the current Indians can trace their lineage back thousands of years, perhaps to the original inhabitants, then you can dismiss the Hurons’ evidence as the fabrication of the British to justify their confiscating land from all the Indians they encountered. That would leave a lot of Hurons to organize and bribe, to make sure they backed up the Brits’ story, but let that pass.

When you say “the fact of the matter is that these people have been here for thousands of years”, I want to ask how do you know?! What is your proof? And what could that proof be, if not the exact same type of archeological evidence that you dismiss as faked when you want to dismiss the theory of immigration into North America? Please clarify this point.

And you missed my point; perhaps in your rush to rebut me you missed a few sentences? . When I mentioned that certain Indian bands had been in Canada for “hundreds” of years when the Europeans arrived, I was making the point that the Indians who were there when the Europeans arrived had not been there from the beginning. They had conquered previous Indian band(s) within a few hundreds (not thousands) of years. And those earlier Indian band(s) in their own time had conquered even-earlier band(s). I also said that if you extended this pattern of conquer and in turn be conquered back in time, you go back thousands (not hundreds) of years until you finally get to the original inhabitants.

If that did not come out clearly, it was what I meant to say.

The overall point of all that was that no Canadian – Indian or otherwise -- has any genealogical line to the first inhabitants, hence no moral right to the land. They have only the “right” of conquerors. Again, if someone could trace their lineage back to the original inhabitants, then they would have an undeniable moral right to the land. But this is not the case, unless you have new evidence to offer.

Your vision of the Indians in Canada as having an unbroken genealogical line back thousands of years is historically inaccurate.

I realize that this weakens my stance against wholesale changes by immigrants to Canada. If the way of history is that successive immigration changes the face of the current culture(s), then why not here in Canada too, by peaceful rather than the usual military means?

A few changes I welcome; wholesale changes that change the very fabric of Canada as we know it – not so much. I’d like to enjoy Canada as it is for a while, before it converts to something else -- Sharia Law for example.

But this is just one man’s opinion – and perhaps nothing more than frantic protestations of one doomed to extinction – a white Caucasian.

 

[ADUFE]

ADUFE:

The quote feature is not working for me, so I am reproducing your query and then replying here.

You:
So who made it Ok for conquerors to do as they liked? And what makes it wrong for so called "supplicants" to ask for what they feel is their right ? Afterall Canada is "MULTICULTURAL" which implies that different cultures are welcome or is there something I'm missing here?

Me:
No, you're not missing anything. It's very confusing terrain we are walking on here: unless we agree on a higher authority to determine what is (morally) right, it is your subjective opinion against mine what is right and what is wrong, with no way to declare a winner except perhaps by jury vote or something similar. My point was that when it comes to one society conquering another, history shows that the conquerors ruled. There was nothing “right” about; it was just the brutal reality. And so I argued that immigrants are the opposite of conquerors, and therefore have no claim to the historical right of conquerors to demand changes from the conquered. Apply this principle to our situation today, and I feel that immigrants have no right to demand (wholesale) changes from the host country.

That's all I was trying to say.

And before I get into a longer argument here, let me compliment you for asking some good questions. It's good for everyone, me included, to question his beliefs every so often.

You:
More importantly, the world is not static, conquerors in time become the conquered and the fact of the matter is that globally the caucasian population is dropping at a very rapid rate and very soon most western countries especially those in North America will have majority non-caucasian populations.Once that happens you can bet the western way of life which they imposed on the indigenous population will slowly but surely give way to that of the main population, whoever they may be.

Me:
That's a very good point. It's like being conquered by degrees, by stealth. Apparently that is happening in Holland, and certain neighbourhoods in London, where the “original society” has all but disappeared – according to those who come from those countries. I don't speak from personal experience here.

Is this trend inevitable? Probably, as you say. For example, birth rates in Muslim nations are higher than in the populations of the so-called developed countries, like Canada. And if Muslims keep immigrating, eventually they will be the majority, and Canada as we know it will no longer exist.

But is it desirable? (Let's avoid debating what is right; it is a swamp from which we will never emerge in our lifetime). Well, not desirable to me, at any rate. If I want to live in an Arabic culture I will go to an Arabic country. If I want to live in a Sharia society, I will go to Saudia Arabia, for one example. And if I want to live in a white and/or Christian society, I can come to the USA, Australia or Canada.

But if we let waves of immigrants come and then transform our culture into theirs, there will be less and less cultural diversity to enjoy; all countries will adopt the cultures of the most populous people.


You:
Lastly, your take about how the indigenous population were not the original inhabitants of America is just pure conjecture put out by some unsrupulous scientists to justify taking land from these same people. The fact of the matter is that these people had been there for tens of thousands of years before the invaders arrived and while some scientists theorize that they migrated from Asia thousands (and not hundreds as written by you), they have not been able to conclusively prove it which is why it remains a theory..

Me:
Here I think you are on weak ground. You are dismissing a wealth of scientific evidence (bones, excavations, carbon dating, etc etc). Sure, the evidence is not conclusive, and scientists are constantly revising their histories, but they are revising the fine points, not the main “theory” that there were successive waves of immigration into North America, and that humans originated in the ancient region of Mesopotamia, in Africa.

Besides, you can't support your view simply by discrediting someone else's. You need evidence of your own.

And even if you doubt this theory, there is oral evidence given by (e.g.) Huron Indians to the British about how they were beaten by the fierce Iroquois in battle, and forced to move to other land. But of course if you want to reach a different conclusion, that the current Indians can trace their lineage back thousands of years, perhaps to the original inhabitants, then you can dismiss the Hurons' evidence as the fabrication of the British to justify their confiscating land from all the Indians they encountered. That would leave a lot of Hurons to organize and bribe, to make sure they backed up the Brits' story, but let that pass.

When you say “the fact of the matter is that these people have been here for thousands of years”, I want to ask how do you know?! What is your proof? And what could that proof be, if not the exact same type of archeological evidence that you dismiss as faked when you want to dismiss the theory of immigration into North America? Please clarify this point.

And you missed my point; perhaps in your rush to rebut me you missed a few sentences? . When I mentioned that certain Indian bands had been in Canada for “hundreds” of years when the Europeans arrived, I was making the point that the Indians who were there when the Europeans arrived had not been there from the beginning. They had conquered previous Indian band(s) within a few hundreds (not thousands) of years. And those earlier Indian band(s) in their own time had conquered even-earlier band(s). I also said that if you extended this pattern of conquer and in turn be conquered back in time, you go back thousands (not hundreds) of years until you finally get to the original inhabitants.

If that did not come out clearly, it was what I meant to say.

The overall point of all that was that no Canadian – Indian or otherwise -- has any genealogical line to the first inhabitants, hence no moral right to the land. They have only the “right” of conquerors. Again, if someone could trace their lineage back to the original inhabitants, then they would have an undeniable moral right to the land. But this is not the case, unless you have new evidence to offer.

Your vision of the Indians in Canada as having an unbroken genealogical line back thousands of years is historically inaccurate.

I realize that this weakens my stance against wholesale changes by immigrants to Canada. If the way of history is that successive immigration changes the face of the current culture(s), then why not here in Canada too, by peaceful rather than the usual military means?

A few changes I welcome; wholesale changes that change the very fabric of Canada as we know it – not so much. I'd like to enjoy Canada as it is for a while, before it converts to something else -- Sharia Law for example.

But this is just one man's opinion – and perhaps nothing more than frantic protestations of one doomed to extinction – a white Caucasian.


Firstly, are both the Iroqouis and Huron not Indian tribes? I presume the answer is obviously yes. Therefore it is disingenious of you to equate a situation where indigenous tribes within an area engaged in tribal war to an unprovoked and total invasion of land by people who came from a very far and totally different environment. Tribal wars have always been a fact of life in all human communities, foreign invasions are a different matter and there is no basis for comparison espically with regards to the large scale genocide and irreversible land grabbing which usually occurs in the latter.

With regards to your statement ;"The overall point of all that was that no Canadian – Indian or otherwise -- has any genealogical line to the first inhabitants, hence no moral right to the land." and all your arguments about the inaccuracy of my statements on the matter;
If that were the case why on earth does Canada itself refer to the indigenous population of that land collectively as the " First Nations"?!! Am I mssing something here?

Frankly, all this talk about Canada converting to Sharia Law is in my opinion just a subtle form of Islamophobia. If you feel it's not please provide evidence that Canada is on it's way to embracing Sharia , I would really like to see.

I am also not asking that things be changed to suit any particular group of immigrants, all I am asking is that people live and let live. If someone wants to do anything eg wear certain type of clothing, grow beards etc which do not harm any other person in any way, why can't some people let them be? Why is it OK for caucasians to have all-over-body tattoos and piercings yet wrong for others to wear turbans or headscarves etc. in the same country?

If I may ask; why on earth are you moving to Canada by the way? Has your country also been taken over by some immigrants?

Lastly, " white caucasian" is a tautlogical phrase; have you ever heard of a black/Indian/Asian caucasian? ;D

 

[toby]

Firstly, are both the Iroqouis and Huron not Indian tribes? I presume the answer is obviously yes. Therefore it is disingenious of you to equate a situation where indigenous tribes within an area engaged in tribal war to an unprovoked and total invasion of land by people who came from a very far and totally different environment. Tribal wars have always been a fact of life in all human communities, foreign invasions are a different matter and there is no basis for comparison espically with regards to the large scale genocide and irreversible land grabbing which usually occurs in the latter.

You are splitting hairs; aggression and conquering are the same whether between neighbouring tribes or between a foreign people (Europeans) and Indians. Ask the victim about to be knifed to death whether he cares where the killer came from. If my great grandfather is the original settler of a property, then I as his heir have a moral right to that land. But if a friend of his came into the territory and forcibly took the land away from my grandfather, then the conquerer’s grandson has no moral right to the land. His grandfather was a usurper, and possession by conquering or any other form of usurpation loses moral right to the land.

You’re ignoring that Indian bands usurped the land from each other, in order to reserve a special status for the current group of Indian bands, to claim that they are moral inheritors from the original inhabitants. I am now losing the sense of how this hair-splitting relates to the point about immigrants’ right to agitate for changes in Canada. Maybe since it is your split hairs, you would remind me?

In any event, the argument is winding down into picayune points not worth the making.

You ask why the government calls them First Nations if they are not. Well, in a masterful act of public relations the Indians called themselves so, and the government does not want to offend them by using any other name. But this does not make the Indians’ wishful thinking into reality. In fact, current Indian bands are more like Thirty-Second Nations, not First Nations.

If you’re going to correct my vocabulary – always invidious and patronizing unless absolutely required to clear up confusion – it is best to check your facts first. Here’s how the dictionary defines “Caucasian”. The term Caucasian race (also Caucasoid, Europid, or Europoid[1]) has been used to denote the general physical type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia (Middle East), Central Asia and South Asia.[2] Historically, the term has been used to describe the entire population of these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone.

Note that some Caucasians can be dark, so I wanted to make it clear that I was talking about the white variety.

With regards to your statement ;"The overall point of all that was that no Canadian – Indian or otherwise -- has any genealogical line to the first inhabitants, hence no moral right to the land." and all your arguments about the inaccuracy of my statements on the matter;
If that were the case why on earth does Canada itself refer to the indigenous population of that land collectively as the " First Nations"?!! Am I mssing something here?
Dealt with above.
Frankly, all this talk about Canada converting to Sharia Law is in my opinion just a subtle form of Islamophobia. If you feel it's not please provide evidence that Canada is on it's way to embracing Sharia , I would really like to see.

Ironically, I challenged someone else on his cautions about Sharia Law, then did some research and ended up much more worried about the impact of attempts to import Sharia Law into host countries. It hasn’t happened so much in Canada – yet – but what has happened in other countries is a cautionary tale. Look up my post on that topic; it was in connection with HSBC’s decision to install Sharia-compliant branches in other countries.


I am also not asking that things be changed to suit any particular group of immigrants, all I am asking is that people live and let live.

I don’t understand the difference between “live and let live”, and permitting immigrants to demand wholesale changes to Canada. Where do you draw the line?

If someone wants to do anything eg wear certain type of clothing, grow beards etc which do not harm any other person in any way, why can't some people let them be? Why is it OK for caucasians to have all-over-body tattoos and piercings yet wrong for others to wear turbans or headscarves etc. in the same country?

It was never wearing turbans that bothered me, but wearing them in a courtroom, and your suggestion to have metal detectors (to find any hidden weapons) resolves my concern.
I am balking at more serious changes. For example, some devotees of Sharia Law want municipal regulations and laws to be adapted to their requirements, want to add Sharia holidays to the school schedule, to make banks Sharia-compliant (including giving money to designated Sharia groups abroad, and there are only weak controls to ensure that this money doesn’t fall into the hands of terrorist groups). I’m not being xenophobic; I did the research.

It’s a long discussion already typed elsewhere, this topic of Sharia Law, so anyone wanting details on this can look up my previous post. But I think it safe to say that non-Sharians would not like these changes at all if they came to Canada.

If I may ask; why on earth are you moving to Canada by the way? Has your country also been taken over by some immigrants?

I am Canadian, and I prefer Canada to China or Costa Rica – where I have been living since 2002. But I want to come back to the Canada I know, not the Canada that some of the more aggressive immigrants might want to change it into.


Lastly, " white caucasian" is a tautlogical phrase; have you ever heard of a black/Indian/Asian caucasian?

Negativo. You rush to correct unnecessarily, and incorrectly, as explained above. And, if you're searching for linguistic perfection, "white caucasian" is a term, not a phrase.