hey, I visited the 'No One is Illegal" Website --and discovered one of their slogans is: No Borders, No Nations! - --really, does this imply they are in favour of eliminating the US & Mexico & Central American borders -making us one big happy family? Does it mean that it is ok for the 'big powers' to eliminate the borders of Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Haiti, Venezuela, and just allow Captial to roll in under the sanction of international agreements pertaining to property, investor rights, the WTO, the FTAA, etc. etc. ...what does this slogan mean?

...Personally I do believe in greater mobility of people amongst the nations of the world, greater freedom for people to move, to seek refugee, for reasons in addition to those expressed in the Int'l Convention on Refugees...but there needs to be a balance too..with the rights of sovereign nations & peoples to establish and enforce laws respecting migration. It is a complex question. I believe racial profiling is an invisible, but unspoken component of Canada's Immigration & immigration inforcement policy, as well as by the police in several provinces of this country. This is an excellent article ...very much current with today --thank you.

This is a really difficult subject which leaves us tongue-tied when we try to talk about some of the problems of immigration and/or ethnic minorities.

Today I took that calculated risk because I worry about this country of ours. Everything I love about Canada (its hugeness, its loneliness, its diversity) make it a tough nation to govern. Too often, we come up short of cohesion.

I'd like to share the letter I wrote today to the Globe and Mail about cohesion ... but first, I need also to tell you that my family has a special affection for India, having lived there for 5 years. So here's what was worrying me today:

Gordon Gibson ("Let's get on with electoral reform") was explaining why he thinks STV should be adopted immediately in B.C. In his comments, Gibson inadvertently touched another raw political nerve when he boasted of B.C. multiculturalism.

He said: " ... We [in British Columbia] don't safely talk [multiculturalism] for electoral purposes as in Ottawa. We live it. In B.C. today, it is possible to be born, educated, work, go to the mall, read newspapers and watch TV, hang out with your friends, retire, die, and be buried exclusively in Hindi or Cantonese or English ..."

At that point, I couldn't help thinking of Gurmant Grewal and his wife. This couple became M.P.s by running for Conservative nominations in two B.C. ridings, to ensure that they won ... a clever innovation, to be sure.

Last week, Mr & Mrs Grewal were back in the news because of another innovation, when they allegedly sought personal benefits from the Liberal Party in return for their two crucial votes on the federal Budget.

Canadians could judge the issue for themselves, given the facts. But the facts weren't available. Why? Because the conversations (thoughtfully recorded in secret by Mr Grewal, M.P.) were in Punjabi.

Gurmant Grewal's discussions had been mainly with Ujjal Dosanjh and another Indo-Canadian. We've had only 8 English minutes of the 4 hours of taped discussions so we can't be sure whether Grewals could have expected to be appointed to the Senate, or to the Diplomatic Service, or to have the RCMP told to stop checking Grewal's suspect immigration cases, in return for the two Grewal votes (or abstensions).

Gibson omits from his life-list of multiculturalisms: to vote. He says to be born, educated, read newspapers and TV ... and (surely) to vote? ... block voting being a highly-charged Indo-Canadian topic in B.C.?

I'd really like to ask Canadians how they feel about this. If multiculturalism fails to educate immigrants about Canadian law, or Canadian ideals, and leaves the Hindi or Cantonese or any other group to live within a bubble of isolation, is that a good thing?

Have we really thought this through?

a very thoughtful post BC Mary, reflecting some of the concerns I too have about this vast country. A matter I would like others views on is this question. The legal fact is that only citizens of Canada can vote - why then is ok for non-citizens to be members of Canadian political parties, to occupy positions of power & influence within political parties, to be senior advisors, to push political parties to the left or right along the political spectrum - perhaps in accordance with the political views of their ethnic community or large foreign corporations --in essence to participate in the political life of a province & nation in a vital way --perhaps to the detriment of Canadian citizens who have a legal right to vote? What would politics in BC/Canada be like if non-citizens were not allowed to be members of Canadian political parties --until they became citizens? With the sale of Canada...I wonder how much of national policy has been highly influenced by 'party insiders' who are not citizens, who cannot vote in national/provincial election, but who nonetheless exercise 'undue influence'?

Such good questions being asked by BC Mary and Peter Dimitrov. It is interesting because at this present time these real vulnerabilities in our system have become ways to access and tamper with our democracy, a subterfuge that swirls cross country from Victoria to Ottawa and back again.

“Have we really thought this through?” Have we really thought what through: multiculturalism; immigration policies and problems; ethnic minorities; the laws of the land; education policies or the problems associated with a burgeoning global population?

Hidden in this story is a question of global significance: In the face of ever-increasing human conflict and the struggle for survival, who decides who lives, and who dies?

There is a percentage of the ‘New World’ population that might think 1.3 % of the world’s refugee population might be too much. Five hundred years ago Europeans were asking them the same question, “What's all the fuss about? Isn't there more than enough room for everybody in this enormous country?"

Five hundred years ago the original, unsuspecting inhabitants were greeted by refugees bearing smallpox, malaria, measles, influenza, bubonic plague, yellow fever, cholera, and malaria. And it’s estimated that over 90 million inhabitants of the “New World” died to make room for “colonization”. (Ronald Wright, “Stolen Continents”) I suppose we can be thankful those threats have been somewhat contained and controlled (at least temporarily) by technological change.

However, today’s threats are somewhat more ephemeral and elusive, they lack the substance that exposes itself under the electron microscope. They are immune to drug therapies and modern medicine.

Today’s threats are the pathological ideologies of the political extremist. It can be argued that ideological conflict has always been with us, however, it would be difficult to dispute the fact that the extremists among the newly arrived refugees, and their modes of expression (political, and protected by the laws of the land), have always been with us.

Xenophobia: It’s one of those words that should be relegated to the dung heap of human distortional thinking. It says and explains absolutely nothing other than to tell the reader that the user really doesn’t understand what drives human behaviour. But, like the term racisim, it’s convenient, and I suppose it absolves the user from explaining 'why' we hate foreigners.

KWD: I was so hoping that nobody would begin to talk about racial bias. I think you know: that's not what I was talking about. Hauling out "xenophobia" just blights the essential conversation we need to have about electoral fairness within a multicultural society.

Nothing I said reflects the appalling notion of "Who lives and who dies." I think you know that.

My concern stated clearly that it rests upon "What's fair and what isn't, what's legal and what isn't" within the function of Parliament.

I just find it passing strange that most of us are unable to tell (because the parliamentary discussions were held in a language most of us don't understand), whether two members of our House of Commons tried to barter their two votes for benefits only to themselves while the Canadian electorate was left out of the equation. Is that how Parliament should work?

And if the Grewals did try to use their two votes as a bargaining chip, then Ms Belinda Stronach must certainly have have bargained hard and won (but we don't have her tapes). Look at the devastating results ...

I mean, you don't suddenly show up with "Hi, look at me, today I'm a Liberal Cabinet Minister and I'm in charge of implementing the Gomery Recommendations!" without one heck of a lot of preliminary haggling between herself and the Prime Minister's chief of staff. The Canadian electorate was left out of that equation too.

In fact, Canada may suffer cruelly, as a result of it. We know that Quebecers are keenly watching the Gomery Inquiry; that they're hurt and angry about the revelations. Imagine the federal government sending the unilingual Ms B.S. to them, to put things right. Did the Liberals think of that, when they haggled for her vote? And when they put her in charge of the Democratic Deficit, for cryin' out loud?

If this is how we want parliament to work, will we soon see the cash-stuffed envelopes being traded for a Cabinet post, a seat in the Senate, or a Diplomatic Posting? Have we thought it through?

BC Mary, the depth of your insight and reasoning is truly inspirational; light years ahead of me. My comments weren’t actually directed at your post, as criticism, even though you were quoted at the start of mine.

I was trying to expand on the enormity of the refugee issue, by pointing out that our Eurocentric history and bias really muddies our thinking, plus, I wanted to point out the pitfalls of using judgmental labels that, far too often, go by unquestioned.

“ ‘xenophobia’ just blights the essential conversation we need to have about electoral fairness [political accountability???] within a multicultural society”. My point exactly, and I was questioning its use in this story. I wasn't making reference to your post.

KWD: The pitfalls of using judgmental labels is exactly what I was referring to when I said right at the top that this is a really difficult subject which leaves us tongue-tied when we try to talk about some of the problems of immigration and/or ethnic minorities. Sorry indeed if I became the nervously jumpy Exhibit A.

I said it was a calculated risk, to try to talk about it ... and I felt it was important to explain that my family has a special affection for India, so this isn't about racial hatred -- quite the reverse.

But the daunting fact of the Grewal issue -- like the whole network which enabled Basi & Virk to rearrange B.C.'s federal Liberal constituencies -- was Indo-Canadian. And although the rest of us had no part in creating that ethnic block, nor can we think of any polite way in which to counteract or open up that process of block voting, we nevertheless must contend with its results.

This is what I was hoping we could talk about. I know we feel tongue-tied, worried as heck that we might give offence where none is intended. And that's one of the beauties of Canada: we really don't want to give offence.

You're right, the topic of this thread is immigration and I'm sorry if I'm off topic. But it seemed to me that this is a neglected part of what immigration means: how do immigrants see and accept their new lives in Canada? Because we're almost all immigrants and have had to make those choices, too.

Equally important, how do Canadians accept new immigrants ... do we help them to understand the abstractions we hold dear, about this country?

To return just once more, to my own family: British-born (Devon & Cornwall), they had lived in China, France, India, before coming to Vancouver determined to make Canada their permanent home. I recall no ballyhoo about how much better things are elsewhere (which I heard from some of their friends). My old Dad believed that Canada was the precious New World in which people could rightfully expect to realize the brotherhood of man.

Born in Canada, I grew up knowing about immigrants. And my point is that my parents to the best of their ability determinedly integrated, assimilated, and became Canadian. Later in life, I better appreciated what an excellent policy that was.

Which leads me back to the first question: have we thought it through? Have we decided what's fair and what isn't, in our multicultural House of Commons ... and for Canada?

BC Mary: My parents too, were of British descent, both born in India as were my brother and sister. My parents lived there for over thirty years. I was their much later afterthought, born in Canada. They loved India but like your parents were the proudest defenders of Canada.

We were the only house on the block in the smalltown I grew up in BC where there was always a curry simmering on the stove. A curry dish along with dal and rice is still a staple in my diet to this day.

Lynn! That's so nice to know we have an India link.

I'm a believer in our official policy of multi-culturalism as the better way to be a nation welcoming to non-white, non-anglo immigrants. I'm relatively confident that history will ultimately show this policy to have been appropriate, as short term history is already showing in many ways. I'm also fairly confident that, yes we have thought it out. In fact we've thought it out well enough that our thinking on the matter is now being adopted and/or adapted in several other countries in the world.

The problems that crop up aren't an indication that the policy or program isn't working, the problems are an indication that the policy and program intersect the intimate and personal lives of real human beings, not statistical units.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizen/index.htm
links to one of Immigration Canada's pages having to do with applying for citizenship. Note in particular the test. I know a lot of natural born Canadians who couldn't pass it. Browse around, go deeper into the links there. It's illuminating.

Just another note on the Komagato Maru.

Canadian fans of live theatre don't find this doc to be new news.

Sharon Pollack wrote a play about this incident in the mid 70s. The play has been mounted by theatre companies right across the country since.

Hi, BC Mary, What has stv got to do with conservative nominations in safe seats?
That is an artifact of first past the post. In STV, if your ethnic hatred stops you voting for a candidate, there is sure to be a right or left winger with acceptable skin tone for you to vote for. Thats why it is also called choice voting.
I was surprised on babble that there was so few repliess to a post I put up about ethnic slurs starting in the newspapers.
I shouldnt have been. So called left wingers seem to be into it too.
Basi and virk were working for paul martin. He is white.
I am concerned about the ethnic inuendo stuff going on. First it is grumbling, then property damage to those nasty aliens and then rocks aimed at their heads.
If you dont want stv and you dont want east indians in political partys, then you can make your own ethnic white one.
There is no need to reclaim the conservative party from them. It is owned by stephen harper.
Brian
Gordon Gibson ("Let's get on with electoral reform") was explaining why he thinks STV should be adopted immediately in B.C. In his comments, Gibson inadvertently touched another raw political nerve when he boasted of B.C. multiculturalism.

He said: " ... We [in British Columbia] don't safely talk [multiculturalism] for electoral purposes as in Ottawa. We live it. In B.C. today, it is possible to be born, educated, work, go to the mall, read newspapers and watch TV, hang out with your friends, retire, die, and be buried exclusively in Hindi or Cantonese or English ..."

At that point, I couldn't help thinking of Gurmant Grewal and his wife. This couple became M.P.s by running for Conservative nominations in two B.C. ridings, to ensure that they won ... a clever innovation, to be sure.

Brian, please read what Peter Dimitrov said (above).

I acknowledged in Line #1 above that this is "a really difficult topic which leaves us tongue-tied" but we need to talk about it.

I also took time to show that my family has ties to India and a special affection for Indo-Canadians. So some of your comments are rather low blows.

Peter Dimitrov's comments give a good outline of what we need to think through.

Banquo: I'm not questioning our immigration policy. What I think we need to question is what we do about certain political activities which get bent out of shape, as with the Grewels bargaining their votes, and Basi & Virk apparently doing something similar. What the heck do we do about that?

Back to Brian: You ask what does STV have to do with Conservative nominations in safe seats ... is this a Knock-Knock joke? Or an artifact?

Read Dimitrov.

Mary, you appeared to be asking what to do about immigrants who may not have enough information about life in Canada.

If you were instead only asking what to do about corruption in political circles I guess you were posting about a different Tyee article than the one above.

If, on the other hand, you were asking about what to do about corrupt *Indo-Canadian* inluence in political circles and basing your presumption of corruption on these three individuals then I would suggest you try and demonstrate a much, much wider circle than just three.

The corruption practiced by hundreds of white anglo or french natural born Canadians far oustrips anything a few Indos could hope to perpetrate in a lifetime.

Banquo. This isn't going to work out if you go the reducto ad absurdum route.

The basis of my concern is fairness in parliament and in the electoral system. That particular week of parliamentary votes being offered for sale concerned the Grewals (2), Ujjal Dosanjh, one other Indo-Canadian, and included Belinda Stronach.

So it isn't ethnic origins that concerns me -- not at all -- it's the exclusionary factor. Bartering parliamentary votes? In a language most Canadians can't understand? That's not the way to conduct the business of Parliament. And you're telling me that people who do these things share a common ethnic origin, we cannot discuss the legalities? Come on.

Doesn't matter that the Basi Boys were Indo-Canadians. It's the exclusionary factor at work again, pushing the ethical boundaries of electoral business.

Wouldn't it be fair to ask if David Basi may have taken advantage of nervous immigrants for political purposes? Don't those immigrants deserve a better chance at democracy than that?

Did you read Dimitrov, above? He is probably saying all this better than I did. Just let me say that I hate to see us splitting into factions on this. And I'll drop out of the discussion if that's all we can produce.

[B]A test before posting.

[I]Since the poster doesn't get a preview.

[U]Really miss that!

Was[I]really confused when attempting to use italics in mid-sentence

See what I mean?

No bold. No italics, No underlining. No outlining.

x#&6@> !!!!

I was just reading haveyouhadenoughyet which is quoting the Globe and Mail about a local B.C. scandal "that may well be far worse, in [Mark] Hume's opinion, than even the slimy mess being uncovered by Mr. Justice John Gomery, involving the questionable distribution of several hundred million dollars.

What might be worse? How about "Drugs. Money. Political connections. Police raids in the legislative precinct. Lists of names being sent to Ottawa for jobs in Mr. Martin's government. " That is Hume’s list.

"Conservative MP John Reynolds asked the government to provide assurances that drug money wasn't used in Mr. Martin's leadership campaign, which in British Columbia involved a remarkable recruiting drive that signed up 36,000 new Liberal members."

"'Where did all the fundraising money come from?' asked Mr. Reynolds, who, like many British Columbians is still waiting for an answer to that and other questions."

Answers to these questions are not likely to come through the rigorous investigative efforts of the decimated staff of any of the media tentacles of CanWest Global, which appears to be sticking to a "hear no evil, see no evil, and report no evil" philosophy, when it comes to reporting on the Campbell Liberal government they worked so hard to elect.

As Hume sees it, "a conservative judiciary is suppressing information about alleged drug dealing, money laundering and influence peddling."

i know! the komagata maru was gordon campbell's fault!

BCMary said"So it isn't ethnic origins that concerns me -- not at all -- it's the exclusionary factor. Bartering parliamentary votes? In a language most Canadians can't understand?" So presumably you would also have objected if they were speaking french? It is perfectly reasonable to barter in another language if you have one. Who knows, someone might be taping it. Anyway, it might be that they were acting as double agents or tripple agents on martins or harpers behalf.
Someone else must have had knowelege of the episode anyway, otherwise why on earth would they have made it public?
Perhaps we need to bring in a police unit from india to investigate? It might be a real big deal because if it was a double double cross, perhaps the conservative leadership set it all up as a sting.
Who knows?

Actually, I was just thinking back. I worked in a factory in england. There was an east indian and a somalian working there too. The east indian was really happy to be working with the somalian. WHY? because he got to speak swahilli again. (and both of them spoke good english).
So that man spoke mostly english and also spoke an east indian language but the language that he grew up with was african and that is the one that he prefered to converse in.
I think people should get used to diversity. By all means clean up nominations to political office. (I suggest stv will clean it up quite well) but get used to people speaking in other languages.

Parliament. Not a beach. Not a factory floor.

Votes aren't commodities.

French is an official language here.

Human exploitation for electoral advantage: BAD.

Diversity good. Exclusion bad.

"It's perfectly reasonable to barter in another language," says BrianWhite ...

Not reasonable to barter votes. Not legal. Not good. Not the Canadian Parliamentary method.

The third country rule which the author objects to is one almost universally accepted by signatories to the international convention on refugees. It's a way of ensuring the bona fides of refugee claims. Genuine refugees--those who have a well founded fear for their personal safety--will make their refugee claim in the first signatory country in which they arrive.

What do you mean by exclusion? People were having a discussion in private and one person was secretly taping it!. "Ah, sorrY mister can you speak in english or french, your accent in punjabi is a bit difficult to understand, also, can U speak up a bit, I am a bit deaf"? . Do you want me to take it further into the unreal?. Or lets make a rule, if you get elected to parliament, you can speak only english and french for the duration of your term in office, just in case someone is taping your conversation? If it is a really important matter, there are translators, you know. It is possible to translate to english or french for the eavesdropping audience.
Harper scares me a lot more than Martin. I was very pleased indeed that Belinda jumped ship.
Horse trading is normal in politics. I do not know the details about the 2 MP's in question but if they have to sign an oath of allegance to harper till death do they part, I think it is seriously bad for canada. If the party leadership is rotten, it is right and propper and ok to topple it or to stop it from gaining power.
And anyway, there was a double cross involved so lets wait and see if it was a conservative plot or liberal plot or just 2 greedy men. OK? After all, has Harper kicked anybody out of the party? And if not, why not? O yeah, because votes are not commoditys!
By the way, I just got an email from an african devellopment group. They are not so keen on first world countrys stealing medical staff as soon as they have been trained. You may complain bitterly about immigrants, but Canada is not being hurt by immigration and in no way does the piddling amount of money given as aid compensate the countrys for the brain drain.
Until you complain a whole lot or fix the nominations rules, or actually join a party, or start a party, people will continue to mess with nominations to the 3 big partys. The 3 big partys are well aware of the problem and their leaderships have used it for years.
BC Mary said""Votes aren't commodities.
French is an official language here.
Human exploitation for electoral advantage: BAD.
Diversity good. Exclusion bad."

Dear BrianWhite, you're wearing yourself out, running down rabbit-trails going nowhere. Stay on track. This isn't complicated.

That's not to say it isn't important. An M.P. is sent to Parliament to safeguard the public, not his personal interests. It is vitally important.

Why do you think people are alarmed about the issue? It's because there's an M.P. who doesn't seem to understand his duty toward Canada and its people.

The issue is about the sacred trust the people give to a Member of Parliament by voting him or her into government. He's there to look after the people -- his constituents. Their best interests, not his. He needs to understand that.

Can you imagine the judge in a court of law offering "Guilty" for a senate seat, or "Not Guilty" for a diplomatic posting? Same principle.

No M.P. should ever, under any circumstances, try to sell his constituents down the river as a means of getting a personal job promotion.

That can be no "private conversation" with Ujjal Dosanjh or Tim Murphy or the other guy about vote-buying. The Canadian public has a basic right to know what was done with those Parliamentary votes and why.

When the R.C.M.P. are brought into the case, it may become more clear to you. And yes, I do think that the same yardstick should apply to the deal Belinda Stronach undoubtedly negotiated, too.

That's about as clear as I can make it.

[QUOTEConservatives to hand over Grewal tapes

By SCOTT DEVEAU
Tuesday, May 31, 2005 Updated at 1:09 PM EDT
Globe and Mail Update

The Conservative Party plans to give the RCMP details from controversial private conversations between a Tory MP and a top Martin aide later Tuesday.

Conservative Party spokesman Mike Storeshaw said his party would release both transcripts and audio files from taped conversations between Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal and Prime Minister Paul Martin's chief of staff Tim Murphy.

Mr. Grewal has accused the Liberal government of offering he and his wife Nina, also an MP, patronage positions with the party if they skipped a confidence vote that threatened to bring down the Liberal minority government two weeks ago.

The Criminal Code includes two broadly worded sections that prohibit offering or accepting an advantage or benefit for an official's influence on government business, as well as soliciting or negotiating a government office in return for any kind of benefit or advantage.

If the Liberals did offer Mr. Grewal and his wife such positions, the Tories said it would be in violation of the code.

Until Tuesday, only eight minutes of the tapes were made public, but Mr. Grewal said he had several hours of recordings between he and Mr. Murphy and the Minister of Health Ujjal Dosanjh. The Liberals asked that the entire tapes be made public last week.

The Liberal Party denied offering Mr. Grewal anything and said it was he who first approached them.

Mr. Storeshaw said he would not give a specific time that the tapes would be released, but said it would be later today.

[B]

BC Mary, the Conservatives did not get the tapes by accident.
Who gave them to them? And why?
They PLAN to give details from the tapes to the rcmp. Why wait?
They are not exactly looking rosy fresh themselves.
It is a pretty strange drama unfolding. Why not wait to pass judgement until more details come out? Mr. Grewal looks like a conservative bait car just now. The hero of the hour!
Will you be slightly embarrassed if that turns out to be the case?

BC Mary
posted: 13 Hours Ago
[QUOTEConservatives to hand over Grewal tapes

By SCOTT DEVEAU
Tuesday, May 31, 2005 Updated at 1:09 PM EDT
Globe and Mail Update

The Conservative Party plans to give the RCMP details from controversial private conversations between a Tory MP and a top Martin aide later Tuesday.

I'm truly sorry if the discussion has distressed you. It needn't, if only you'd read what I said.

It's about ethics. It's about selling votes. It's about Grewal and Stronach and anybody else who sells votes or buys votes.

I wish you well, as I say adieu.

There's a lot of news coverage in recent hours on the buying or selling of parliamentary votes or jobs.

The 'secret' Belinda tapes. By Margaret Wente. Toronto Star, 2 June.

Quiet nods and welcoming winks, Murphy, Dosanjh and Martin were buying what Grewal was appearing to offer. By Christie Blatchford. Globe and Mail, 1 June.

Excerpt from Grewal tapes:
Dosanjh to Grewal: " ... Nobody will make you a totally blunt promise. That's not just done in politics usually. Going into cabinet right away, that's a possibility but ... I know that you might not be ready to do it right now, but you'd certainly be looking for a significant appointment for her [Mrs Grewal], not for you. How old are you now?
Grewal: 47.

[B]Full transcripts: visit globeandmail.com for links to complete contents.

MC MARY
"I'd really like to ask Canadians how they feel about this. If multiculturalism fails to educate immigrants about Canadian law, or Canadian ideals, and leaves the Hindi or Cantonese or any other group to live within a bubble of isolation, is that a good thing?
Have we really thought this through?"
Does that mean it is ok to use exacto knives to teach the canadian way? Is that a canadian ideal you want to teach?
The presumption is that there is a Canadian way that is somehow superior to other ways. Martin is full blown canadian
and those guys were working for him and Harper. They were not living in "the bubble of isolation", its looking more and more like they are much more attune to the canadian way than you!
Blaming the ethnic footsoldier is blinkered. Look at the full picture.
The "canadian Way" needs cleaning up for sure. Jumping on fall guys isnt the way to do it.

Time to invoke one of my personal heroes:

Mohandas Gandhi's Seven Sins:

Politics without Principle;
Wealth without Work;
Commerce without Morality;
Pleasure without Conscience;
Education without Character;
Science without Humanity;
Worship without Sacrifice.

This event was certainly not a high point in our provincial history. What I find interesting about Canadians is that they seem to accept that folks of European descent (whites) have been and can still be racist. Most of the effort to eradicate racism seems to be aimed at this white vs everyone else view. What the government and most PC people seem desperate to ignore is that almost every other ethnic group here also has deep racist beliefs. The East Indian communities are very closed to intermixing as are the Chinese. The Persian community also has a certain amount of racism also.

My wife is Malay/Indian and when we go to “little India” the older population of East Indians shun us and have even refused to serve. Thankfully the younger generations born here do not appear to be carrying this racism forward. I remember arguing about racism with a gentleman of Hindu origin. He was complaining about racism from the white community. I asked him how he would react if I told him I wanted to marry his daughter, he replied that it was not “proper” for mixed relationships, I asked what was the difference between the racism he experienced and what he had just showed me.

Although I have experienced very strong racism from the local First Nation youth when I was growing up and still receive some today in my work, I am a bit more forgiving as I realize that a lot of it was pent up anger at an unfair system. First Nations are generally a lot more open today, then they were 20 years ago. The most open group that I have had contact with is the Pilipino community.

There are other groups here also not prone to mixing and the more fundamentalist Islamic types I have met are very closed and very elitist. At a dinner with a group of them I enjoyed serving my wife and sitting with to eat dinner. I have also had a Somali man tell me that he enjoys the rights and freedoms of Canada, but does not allow his wife to do so as it would “spoil her”

While we're waiting I'll tell you what happened. Grewal figured if Stronach got a ministry, why shouldn't he and his wife sell out the Conserves and end up in Martin's cabinet. He approached the Libs first and entangled Murphy in a goofy conversation in which Murphy tried to see if he could wrangle another seat for the Libs without appearing to buy it. Grewal has absolutely no scruples at all. Imagine being willing to betray his own party AND claiming he was doing cloak and dagger stuff when he gets caught. What a disgusting little puke. And don't worry, BC Mary we all know you're not a racist, so enough of the, "some of my friends are...eh"

Colin, I just read your comment. Well, at least somebody has the guts to say it. I'm a black guy and I lived through a lot of racist crap in the 60's and I'm well educated about the evil Europeans did to the rest of the world during the slavery days and colonialism and how they, and America and Canada, with the aid of the IMF and the World Bank still conspire to keep Africa in poverty, but I must say white people in general--with many exceptions of course--are probably the LEAST racist group around the lower mainland today. Good on you, Colin. And yes, the willingness of an ethnic group to accept "others" into their family by marriage is a dependable indicator of racist attitudes.

Anyways, we should probably wait to see how much editing goes on the tapes. Is it really tapes? We need to know which little modern marvel it was. I want a voise recorder too!
If Harper ever forms goverment, wont it be fun for foreign dignitorys doing treatys deals with him? Nothing will ever be off the record again! How will anybody negociate? Even the nice people doing telephone selling have to say that "this converstaion may be recorded".
Personally, I think it is pretty scummy behaviour to record a conversation without the other persons knowelege.

Truman, thanks. But now you've done it. You wanna talk about race? OK ...

Last evening in Toronto, there was an old, sick, black man (I've never thought of him as "a black man", but dammit, if we're going to keep on about this ...)

He showed up for work as usual. And I am told by someone who was there, that the evening will go down in history. Good history. Canadian history.

He's had a stroke, this old guy, so he had to come into the workplace on the arm of the conductor, taking baby steps to get across the stage. But the moment people saw his big familiar figure, they lifted the roof off Roy Thomson Hall. Standing ovation before he even reached the grand piano. This is his town. His home. He's part of who we all are. Collectively.

His work is no longer brilliant. His left arm barely works at all anymore and his hearing is shot. But for a couple of generations, Oscar's work was one of Canada's proudest boasts and now. here he was, back on stage in his own hometown.

Oscar's infirmaties put his back-up group -- the TSO -- through challenges like never before because he's getting a little hazy, his hearing is impaired now, and he skipped some music ... skipped one whole piece ... often leaving the conductor scrabbling through his music to find where Oscar was ... then ... calling "Twenty-nine!" to his 100+ musicians before giving the downbeat to begin playing halfway into the tune. Which they did. Brilliantly. Smiling through tears.

Nobody minded. It was Oscar. Our same old wonderful Oscar, who was so tired at the end of his session that he came back on stage in a wheel-chair ... and played an encore from his wheelchair.

TSO musicians in the prime of their professional lives, were proud as hell that he'd made the effort to play for Toronto one more time. They were proud to have been there with him. Parents will tell their children (I've heard one already) about last evening at Roy Thomson Hall, with the Toronto Symphony Orchestra playing back-up to a sick old local guy, Oscar Petersen.

Can't wait to see what the critics say ... or will they side-step the whole marvelous event because it was love and belonging, as much as Oscar's music, that filled our hearts last evening.

How do you reduce that to 5 stars or no stars? Where does it fit, in our rating system? Where the hell does race fit at all, in this picture?

Lovely account Mary, and no place for race.

Hi Truman. Sweet words, like a blessing.

I was thinking about this again, as I read the two morning newspapers in Toronto: not a word about that evening with Oscar.

Talking to a TSO musician, I heard back-stage stuff about the strong bond between the musicians and the old piano player who is barely able to walk now, his music just a reminder of what once was ... there's such a big story behind that performance which, in the Monday morning media, is no story at all, apparently.

For one thing: we could understand how gifted, how practised, and how determined 100 classical musicians have to be, to be able to leap (as one) into the random starts on barely-heard cues, and still be the precision-perfect TSO? Much head-shaking, smiles, tears. They could scarcely believe they'd got through it so well.

But even that, I think, was all about Oscar ... to back him up, the TSO provided their absolute best which is very, very good in itself.

That performance, flawed as it may have been, deserved such a special music review for the TSO, challenged as never before.

But also: I think every Old Person on the planet was embodied in that performance so eloquently evocative of a life well lived. Everybody who loves good music was part of Oscar's evening. Everyone who believes that some loves never die. Every Canadian. And still, there was more ...

I understand CBC was there, recording the show. Good thing, eh?