I don't really see how multiculturalism is bad...

[Canis_lupus]

You're in OUR country now. SPEAK ENGLISH.

I agree with this . i dont care what you speak with your family or at home but when you are talking to me i dont wanna have to get out a rosetta stone to figure out what you are saying. I can understand if some people have brocken english, they are at least trying but upright refusal is just stupid. at least learn sign language, that at least is universal.

before someone flames me for this, Yes i do speak another language.

[NydaLynn]

Did you know that the indigenous peoples of north america had not seen horses before settlers from europe arrived?

However, their ancient ancestors saw them - and most likely ate them all.

Yep, sure looks like it.

[NydaLynn]

You're in OUR country now. SPEAK ENGLISH.

Seems alot of people agree. Recently there was a town in Maryland that declared thier official language to be English. This means any business is to be conducted in english. Which means they do not have to offer translations for those that do not speak english.

Though... this should really go both ways. If you are off to visit, say... Siri Lanka... you should not become upset if no one speaks your language.

[MikeVanPelt]

Well, here's how I look at it: you can speak your native language around the house all you want, but you'd better learn English (or French here in Quebec, or even both) out when doing official business...

A friend of mine is from British Columbia, and I get an earful from him about "the French." In all of Canada, even where there are no French-speaking people, all signs must be in both English and French, and everyone providing government services must be able to do so in either language.

Except...

In Quebec, where signs must be in French only; English signs are against the law. And it is enforced.

Now, maybe he's exaggerating, but not by much, because I have read news articles about some business getting cited for having a sign in English in Quebec.

That example reinforces my opinion that we need to get it established in law that the U.S. is an English-speaking country, period. Because it can get pretty bad.

[Tom Mazanec]

I do not "do" sign language. And there is a deaf woman in our group home.
During a brief spell as a no-code ham just before the web came out, I spoke with someone across Lake Erie and he complained about the Francophones saying, quote "They should all move to a place with a MUCH hotter climate than Quebec". I told him that there were people in the States who want to do the same thing with Spanish and he said he hoped not, for our sake,

[Canis_lupus]

i was just saying that if everyone were to know sign language there would be far less bad blood between some people.

[Tom Mazanec]

Oh. But that is almost like saying if everyone had Esperanto as an auxiliary language there would be fewer wars. Notice wars occur between people speaking a common language...in American History the War of Independance, the War of 1812 and the Civil War for example. Civil wars can be as bad as any.

[Kerry Skydancer]

Can be? Civil wars are often the very worst kind possible.

[LoneWolf23k]

A friend of mine is from British Columbia, and I get an earful from him about "the French." In all of Canada, even where there are no French-speaking people, all signs must be in both English and French, and everyone providing government services must be able to do so in either language.

Except...

In Quebec, where signs must be in French only; English signs are against the law. And it is enforced.

Now, maybe he's exaggerating, but not by much, because I have read news articles about some business getting cited for having a sign in English in Quebec.

That example reinforces my opinion that we need to get it established in law that the U.S. is an English-speaking country, period. Because it can get pretty bad.

He's not exagerating. There's actually a law that says outdoor signs to be in French only. Law 101. It was extremely controversial when it was first introduced, but since then everyone's gotten used to it, especially since English information is usually always accessible for anglophones in every government service and most businesses.

I do not "do" sign language. And there is a deaf woman in our group home.
During a brief spell as a no-code ham just before the web came out, I spoke with someone across Lake Erie and he complained about the Francophones saying, quote "They should all move to a place with a MUCH hotter climate than Quebec". I told him that there were people in the States who want to do the same thing with Spanish and he said he hoped not, for our sake,

Well, if anything we Quebecois have matured a bit since the 60s when the whole Seperatist thing got started. What we really wanted was to hold on to our traditions and interact with the rest of Canada on our terms, as equals rather then as a conquered people.

And that's really the important thing to remember here.. Our cultural identity for years was that of french catholics conquered by english protestants. We held on to our linguistic and religious identity out of sheer dogged determination "Not to let the Brits finish us off."

And it's taken us years and two near Seperations, but we've achieved it. PM Stephen Harper's recent motion recognizing Quebec as "A Nation within a United Canada" has actually gotten accepted by some of the Sovereignists as being good for Quebec. To be honest, we've gotten used to our Anglo-Canadian compatriotes, and I don't think we'll ever go ahead and Seperate for real. We're like an old married couple that argues all the time, but sticks together anyway.

[LoneWolf23k]

Oh, and may I add that the Palestinians could stand to learn a thing or two about "resistance" from us Quebecois.. Only once did any Quebecois turn to terrorism in the name of Quebec nationalism, and the resulting military reaction from Ottawa hammered in the idea that we couldn't win our Nation by acts of terrorism, and that we should do it through politics and cultural activism.

...And lo and behold, we've done much better for ourselves then the Palestinians, haven't we?

[Axelgear]

Civil wars can be as bad as any.

Is not all war civil? It is always man against man; brother against brother. National identities and regional seperations (Nations and Regions are totally different things) may set us apart, but are we not all human at our core?

Sorry, I was getting a bit philosophical there. Yes, I think the PLQ could take a big lesson from the FLQ. Terrorist acts do little but show that you are willing to harm innocents to get your way, and therefore tell others you consider your ideals and/or your people worth more than others. Only by proving you want to change things legally and believe in the legal process can you show you deserve such things.

And while I do agree that people should learn English (Or French in Canada's case if you go to Quebec) if you come to Canada or America, culture is not intrinsically tied to language. There are those who still practice ancient African beliefs but do so entirely in another language (Typically French or English). Or there's pretty much every latino country that speaks Spanish or Portugese, and contain large groups of people who still practice old tribal ways, but, once again, in another language.

Yes, people should fluently learn the language of their new nation, but that doesn't mean they give up their culture. Culture is habits, practices, beliefs, and while it can be linked to language, it doesn't mean you can't speak English.

Heck, even when Culture IS tied to language, it doesn't mean you can't speak english. Look at the First Nations groups; they speak more than one language (Especially the Metis, who speak English, French, and the language of their Nation). If they can do this, does it not stand to reason that people who claim they can't speak English properly because they don't want to lose their culture just aren't willing to adapt?

I think I'm rambling and have lost my point. Did that all make sense?

[LoneWolf23k]

Nah, I get ya. Holding on to languages and traditions are one thing, but fitting in socially is another thing altogether.

[Earl McClaw]

In a related story, a Montreal CLSC (a community clinic) was the scene of another controversy when a muslim woman attending a lamaze class requested that no males attented the class with their wives.

I could see her insisting on having an option for Lamaze training without an unrelated male present, but if she was demanding nobody else could have Lamaze training with their husband, then that's going too far, because it's requiring everyone else to live by her culture's standards. (And as Lamaze involves a partner, most Western women chose their husbands. Banning husbands from all classes would seriously reduce participation.)

And for a few years now, young Sikh students are allowed to keep their Kirpan knives when attending public schools...

Blunted, I hope.

Or maybe I'm just uncomfortable about any religion that requires it's members to go about armed at all times...

And I believe there is a tie between culture and language, as culture influences the usage of language. Often to fully learn a language you need to learn something of the culture that uses it. How easily people of one culture can adapt to using a different language depends in part on what their new language can accomodate.

[Axelgear]

In a related story, a Montreal CLSC (a community clinic) was the scene of another controversy when a muslim woman attending a lamaze class requested that no males attented the class with their wives.

I could see her insisting on having an option for Lamaze training without an unrelated male present, but if she was demanding nobody else could have Lamaze training with their husband, then that's going too far, because it's requiring everyone else to live by her culture's standards. (And as Lamaze involves a partner, most Western women chose their husbands. Banning husbands from all classes would seriously reduce participation.)

Wow, I SERIOUSLY misread that. I thought it said Aerobics! Sheesh... Yeah, I agree with that point entirely.

And for a few years now, young Sikh students are allowed to keep their Kirpan knives when attending public schools...

Blunted, I hope.

Or maybe I'm just uncomfortable about any religion that requires it's members to go about armed at all times...

And I believe there is a tie between culture and language, as culture influences the usage of language. Often to fully learn a language you need to learn something of the culture that uses it. How easily people of one culture can adapt to using a different language depends in part on what their new language can accomodate.

Sheesh, I seriously misread this stuff... I thought it said wives... I need to have my eyes checked...

And I don't believe it's a part of the religion, but rather regional. I am not sure but I saw a documentary where, to speak with nomads, the man needed to get such a knife and wear it in his belt. However, these people were not Sikhs, just from a Sikhist area, which tells me that it's more about history than religion, and was a symbol of honor and manhood.

However, I do also agree. Unless you have to worry about being jumped in the night whenever you walk more than five feet from your house or a mountain lion being on the path to school, I don't think you can justify weilding a knife.

[Kerry Skydancer]

Nope. For Sikh males, the knife is one of their five articles of faith that they're supposed to wear at all times. The religion is very much a warrior creed. (Granted, the long hair is a bit silly - our military regs forbid it for operational reasons. Don't know how that goes over with them - they're a big chunk of the Indian military, and would be a good addition to ours.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan

Since the rest of their basic belief system blends well with the Jacksonian ideal of a polite well-armed society, I don't have any trouble with them carrying the ceremonial knife in school or anywhere else. Personally, I think the idea should be adopted by other groups as well.

[Axelgear]

I think the long hair has to do more with the fact that it originated in areas with a lot of sun. Y'know, a way to keep the sun off your head and neck. That's just a guess though. As to carrying knives, I think safety devices such as shock-jackets work just as well but have far less potential to kill.

Personally, I think it's rather useful. Not all people know how to weild a knife, after all, and most people who do so usually end up having it taken away from them and/or used against them (Not to mention size/strength dynamics. A 140 pound, 5'6" woman is no match for a 260 pound, 6'9" man. She just isn't going to win unless she knows he's coming and her first blow really strikes true). Just too dangerous. This, on the other hand, cannot be disarmed and makes an effective defensive tool against attackers. They grab, they convulse, they drop.

Edit: Quick note. While I do find the idea of carrying high-lethality weapons distasteful, I do not disagree with it, and find the ideals of Sikhism actually rather, for lack of a better word, nice. However, I also know that ideals are not always constant, and many a time have I seen people exploit certain freedoms. It is a sort of situation where one bad apple spoils the bunch; where one kid has brought a knife to school and stabbed someone, accidentally or not, and people don't want it to happen again. It's hypocritical for me to argue that point though, so I won't argue against Sikh's being allowed to keep their knives. I just present an alternative.

Second note: It is sort of invalid for me to point out the size/weight dynamics thing, since women don't carry these knives, but that, at the same time, leaves them even more vulnerable to attack, which ironically makes the argument valid again. Still, all the same, ignore it if you choose.

[BrockthePaine]

Personally, I think it's rather useful. Not all people know how to weild a knife, after all, and most people who do so usually end up having it taken away from them and/or used against them (Not to mention size/strength dynamics. A 140 pound, 5'6" woman is no match for a 260 pound, 6'9" man. She just isn't going to win unless she knows he's coming and her first blow really strikes true). Just too dangerous. This, on the other hand, cannot be disarmed and makes an effective defensive tool against attackers. They grab, they convulse, they drop.

Unless, of course, the attacker is so hopped up on drugs that he just gets angry...

I've seen those jackets before. They didn't impress me at all, and they wouldn't have stopped me if I was trying to attack someone, either.

This is why guns are the great equalizer. A 5'6" woman doesn't NEED to beat her opponent. I refer you to this chart and the accompanying article:

"Incidents where victims use a gun defensively are almost never gunfights where both parties shoot at one another. Only 24% of the incidents involved the defender firing their gun, and only 16% involved the defender shooting at their adversary."

A different study (Journal of Quantitative Criminology 9 [1993]: 55-82) goes on to point out: "Robbery victims who used guns in self-protection were significantly less likely to either be injured or lose their property than victims who used any other form of self protection or who did nothing to resist."

So as you can see, carrying a gun is far more useful for someone trying to defend against an attacker.

Now, if you'll pardon me, I was actually about to go shooting when I started responding to this...

[LoneWolf23k]

Nope. For Sikh males, the knife is one of their five articles of faith that they're supposed to wear at all times. The religion is very much a warrior creed. (Granted, the long hair is a bit silly - our military regs forbid it for operational reasons. Don't know how that goes over with them - they're a big chunk of the Indian military, and would be a good addition to ours.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan

Since the rest of their basic belief system blends well with the Jacksonian ideal of a polite well-armed society, I don't have any trouble with them carrying the ceremonial knife in school or anywhere else. Personally, I think the idea should be adopted by other groups as well.

Well, the long hair's probably not an issue most of the time since they also keep it under a turban.

[Axelgear]

Oh, I have nothing against guns. I am, in fact, a member of a fire-arms range. The problem I have with allowing people to carry fire-arms in public is a mix of things really:

1. I've been exposed to human stupidity and the whole "Guns kill people, not people who pull the trigger" junk for too long that, despite that I know it's total stupidity, a part of me refuses to let go of that fear.

2. I know too many people who're smart enough to pass the Fire-Arms Handling Tests, but are not smart enough to fool around with them. They're the kind of people who'd fire their guns into the air or wave them around while they're loaded.

3. Despite the fact that criminals would still use illegal weapons, and that legal gun owners would finally recieve the acknowledgement they deserve, it would make arresting people carrying illegal weapons in public a little harder to catch. After all, can you ask a police officer to stop EVERY teenage guy with a gun and baggy pants if he's got a license or not? And what about areas with public officials? It is rare, but the fact is, seeing a non-authority figure with a weapon in public around here is typically bad, because it's unheard of that a legal gun owner will break the law by doing that.

Still, I do agree that public handling laws would make it a bit easier for people to fight back. After all, people carried swords in the Middle Ages all the time, and police forces were uncommon to say the least in some places, yet they still maintained a semblance of law.

And by the way, I don't think you quite realize just how capable this thing could be. Most people have the misconception that this is meant to be used as a constant weapon. Now, while it could be (Adding electroshock to your punches. Tazers really hurt if you get the good kind), it's more about someone sneaking up on you, grabbing you, and getting such a shock that they let go and you have time to run. Even if someone is on drugs though, if they get you right, you may not even be able to grab your gun, and even then, depending on what they're on, you need a kill shot to bring them down, which is harder than people think to get, especially if your hands shake like mine do (I can do precision given time, but with a single second push of the button, I'm not a straight-shooter).

So... It's debatable which provides more protection really.

[BrockthePaine]

And by the way, I don't think you quite realize just how capable this thing could be. Most people have the misconception that this is meant to be used as a constant weapon. Now, while it could be (Adding electroshock to your punches. Tazers really hurt if you get the good kind), it's more about someone sneaking up on you, grabbing you, and getting such a shock that they let go and you have time to run. Even if someone is on drugs though, if they get you right, you may not even be able to grab your gun, and even then, depending on what they're on, you need a kill shot to bring them down, which is harder than people think to get, especially if your hands shake like mine do (I can do precision given time, but with a single second push of the button, I'm not a straight-shooter).

Which is why the best defense is paying attention.

You're right about needing a kill shot to bring down a guy on drugs. Though you shouldn't really be shooting if you aren't trying to kill them. Basic rule: if you gotta draw the gun, you'd better be willing to shoot; if you gotta shoot, you shoot to kill. If you DON'T shoot to kill, you're gonna get your rear sued off in court and might go to jail for manslaughter. Even then, a mortal shot is not always a stopper - for instance the crack-pusher who tried to rob a pizza delivery boy, who drew his SigSauer and put 15 rounds of .45ACP into the guy's chest before he stopped. Five rounds through the heart, the rest through the lungs and such, and only then did he stop his attack. I hear too many stories like that to be entirely at ease just being protected by a jacket.

The jacket, I notice, costs about twice what I paid for my 1911 or my CZ75B, and I can wear those two year-round.