Richmond, B.C., considers banning Chinese-only signage

[Acajack]

FYI Chinese-Canadians are two out of 10 on Richmond city council.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I feel like this is a problem with municipal councils rather than an overall racial problem. All three of Brampton's MPPs*, and two out of three of Brampton's MPs, are Indo-Canadian.

*that's the Ontario term for what most other provinces call MLAs, for all you non-Ontarians out there

Visible minorities make up 25.9% of the population of Ontario, and 16.8% of Ontario's parliamentarians. An underrepresentation but not a huge one. It's similar to the under-representation rate of women (35% of Ontario parliamentarians are female).

You are right that representation at the provincial and federal levels seems to be a lot better. Thanks for pointing that out.

[saffronleaf]

FYI, individuals who identify as "Chinese" constitute 36% of enrollment at UBC, while individuals who identify as "White" constitute 33% of enrollment at UBC.

http://www.pair.ubc.ca/enrolment%20reports/BOG%20Enrolment%20Report_UBCV_Nov%202013_final.pdf

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You are right that representation at the provincial and federal levels seems to be a lot better. Thanks for pointing that out.

I'm curious as to why that's the case. Perhaps political parties delibarately encourage riding associations to nominate minority candidates? I've also noticed that Franco-Ontarians have a tendency to be over-represented in the Ontario legislature as well in a sense.. in that ridings like Ottawa-Vanier and Ottawa-Orleans with substantial francophone minorities but nonetheless strong anglo majorities tend to always have francophone MPPs & MPs.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

FYI, individuals who identify as "Chinese" constitute 36% of enrollment at UBC, while individuals who identify as "White" constitute 33% of enrollment at UBC.

http://www.pair.ubc.ca/enrolment%20reports/BOG%20Enrolment%20Report_UBCV_Nov%202013_final.pdf

Yippers. Human societies and the institutions they spawn are imperfect by nature. We will never achieve a situation where X% of students, elected officials, firefighters, police officers, etc. will be faithfully representative of every group's share in the overall population.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Yippers. Human societies and the institutions they spawn are imperfect by nature. We will never achieve a situation where X% of students, elected officials, firefighters, police officers, etc. will be faithfully representative of every group's share in the overall population.

I don't know if that's imperfection or self-selection. You can't force someone to opt for city council rather than medicine just because the two areas aren't perfectly representative of local demographics.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I don't know if that's imperfection or self-selection. You can't force someone to opt for city council rather than medicine just because the two areas aren't perfectly representative of local demographics.

What does "representative" really mean in this case? I find that focusing so much on nationality and "historical roots" to determine "representation" is a very flawed, simple minded, and ultimately destructive way to approach government. So just because I have roots in the Ukraine I should vote for the Ukrainian guy? I might as well vote for the guy with black hair because my hair is black.

When we pick representatives, we should pick representatives that we feel would be the best fit at tackling the problems and the direction of the relevant jurisdiction they are running for. There are communists and anarchists and capitalists and libertarians and every conceivable political representation from every country, including China and India and the Philippines. So it doesn't matter if someone believes that the role of government is to burn 1% of the population in wild fires every quarter, as long as they have a representative nationality, they're in!

IMO A much bigger problem is the barriers to entry in running and being elected in any meaningful position in the government. City Council members in Calgary routine spend 6+ figures on their campaigns, make back door deals with powerful unions and require the influence to be in a position to make those deals, etc. It's a mess. And that's just lowly city council. If we want to clean up our government "representation" the last thing we should prioritize is picking people just based on their nationality.

[Acajack]

Well, looks like Canada's gonna get a Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act...

Polygamy is apparently considered barbaric now...

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Well, looks like Canada's gonna get a Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act...

Polygamy is apparently considered barbaric now...

Great! I'll never have to eat haggis at a Robbie Burns supper again.

[red-paladin]

This thread is so far off topic..

[Acajack]

Polygamy to me seems like such a non-issue in our era. I suppose it made sense to ban it in times when society's views on monogamy were much stricter but in these days of kids born out of wedlock, parents with kids with several different partners, polyamory, open relationships, you name it...

I can live with 10 girlfriends as if they were all my "wives" and have kids with all of them if I want. The only implications the ban on polygamy will have is with a few specific tax provisions and social benefits.

That's it.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Polygamy to me seems like such a non-issue in our era. I suppose it made sense to ban it in times when society's views on monogamy were much stricter but in these days of kids born out of wedlock, parents with kids with several different partners, polyamory, open relationships, you name it...

I can live with 10 girlfriends as if they were all my "wives" and have kids with all of them if I want. The only implications the ban on polygamy will have is with a few specific tax provisions and social benefits.

That's it.

You have a remarkably flowery view of polygamy. I'd wager that the reality is far less pleasant - at least for the wives and children.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

You have a remarkably flowery view of polygamy. I'd wager that the reality is far less pleasant - at least for the wives and children.

I'm sorry. That's not really what I was getting at. My point was that it's really difficult or even impossible in our era to control this if people truly want to live like that.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by esquire

You have a remarkably flowery view of polygamy. I'd wager that the reality is far less pleasant - at least for the wives and children.

Someone can have only one wife and make it very unpleasant for her... or have several, and be nice to them.

Please tell me you're not suggesting new extra laws making it illegal to make your significant other(s) unhappy...

(It would be impossible to enforce anyway.)

[cabotp]

The new proposed "Barbaric Cultural Practices Act..." Doesn't prevent polygamy. What it stops is young people below the age of 16 from getting married. It stops young girls from becoming slaves of old men. Thus the tie in to polygamy. It prevents arranged marriages to young people and "honor killings" related to that.

And for that I fully support this law. I don't see any reason anyone below the age of 16 should need to ever get married.

Now back to the actual topic at hand. The chinese only signs and their lack of english.

If these companies want to put up chinese only signs. That is their right. Although I don't think it is a wise decision on their part. Since by doing so they are turning away a portion of the public that might be potential customers.

[Metro-One]

I enjoy checkin this thread every now and then just to see how off topic it has become.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by cabotp

The new proposed "Barbaric Cultural Practices Act..." Doesn't prevent polygamy. What it stops is young people below the age of 16 from getting married. It stops young girls from becoming slaves of old men. Thus the tie in to polygamy. It prevents arranged marriages to young people and "honor killings" related to that.

And for that I fully support this law. I don't see any reason anyone below the age of 16 should need to ever get married.

.

Almost everything that's in this bill is already illegal in Canada anyway. It's hammering a nail that's already 98% of the way in.

[geotag277]

A 16 year old can still get "married" in some random religious ceremony and the government wouldn't even know, so long as they don't apply for a legal certificate, and really by making it illegal why would they?

It begs the question of how much the government should even be involved in the marriage game at all. The traditional answer seems to be that the government should promote healthy institutions that steer the country in the right direction, throwing tax breaks and benefits at social "institutions" that it approves of - but really that is a nebulous goal and prime for abuse - the government fight over same sex marriage that happened last decade being one obvious recent instance that needed to be corrected by the government.

Polygamy, while considerably a smaller cross section of the population, is another issue that really should be up to the consenting adults in the relationship in question. Should there even be a government-recognized "approval" of such relationships at all, and all the tax benefits that go along with it?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by geotag277

A 16 year old can still get "married" in some random religious ceremony and the government wouldn't even know, so long as they don't apply for a legal certificate, and really by making it illegal why would they?

It begs the question of how much the government should even be involved in the marriage game at all. The traditional answer seems to be that the government should promote healthy institutions that steer the country in the right direction, throwing tax breaks and benefits at social "institutions" that it approves of - but really that is a nebulous goal and prime for abuse - the government fight over same sex marriage that happened last decade being one obvious recent instance that needed to be corrected by the government.

Polygamy, while considerably a smaller cross section of the population, is another issue that really should be up to the consenting adults in the relationship in question. Should there even be a government-recognized "approval" of such relationships at all, and all the tax benefits that go along with it?

Benefits from the state should be related to the presence of kids in a household, not to the type of relationship or union the adults living there have.

[saffronleaf]

The state shouldn't even get involved with recognizing marriages. Marriages are a sociocultural institution.

If you simply want to transfer the rights and responsibilities ordinarily associated with marriages to another person, you should be able to go to some Ministry to get that done.

I see nothing wrong with polygamous marriages; 1 wife, many husbands; 1 husband, many wives; many husbands, many wives; a group of husbands; a group of wives, whatever. Go nuts, it's your life and you should do as you please.

Besides, it's something that can never be enforced. If three adults live together, who cares? You can't send in cops every night to make sure they're not having threesomes or that they don't call each other wife/husband/whatever.