Where I went to school...

I went to Khalsa School from Kindergarten to Grade 10 (although I skipped two grades somewhere along the way).

Since I left Khalsa School in 2000, the standarized test scores have fallen quite a bit.

I don't know what happened, but in this year's rankings of both independent and public schools, Khalsa School parachuted itself into first place, both in the Vancouver and Surrey branches.

Here's the first paragraph of the Vancouver Sun article (the rest is subscription only):

If there was a Cinderella finish in the last set of Foundation Skills Assessment results it belonged to the Khalsa school in Surrey, a traditional Sikh school that jumped from 199th in the previous rankings to a tie for first place.

Not only that, but when factoring in the parents average education, both the Khalsa Schools also topped the list of "overachievers".

I don't know exactly why - but I feel so proud.

Current CBC.ca headline...

U.S. launches controversial rocket toward Newfoundland

Normally, I'm pretty cautious in my assessments of media bias, but honestly, was there NO better way to phrase the headline for that story??

Not enough credit...

Paul Martin hasn't received enough credit for changing Canada's voting patterns at the United Nations...

This article is just one more example of the improvement in Canada's standing on the world stage.

Canada stood alone with Australia and America (not even Britain! - I guess Tony Blair doesn't want to take any risks during an election campaign) to protest the election of Zimbabwe to the United Nations human rights commission.

The UN's high commissioner on Human Rights, a former Canadian Supreme Court Justice was in the news recently, talking about how ineffective and hypocritical the human rights commission really is.

The recent foreign policy statement stressed the need for UN reform...

Canada's voting pattern in regards to the Israeli/Palistinean situation has moved from always abstaining to actually voting "Yes" or "No" on important issues and often standing alone with the United States and a small number of other countries in doing so.

So yeah, good job to Paul Martin. He might be an unprincipled leader and he's probably completely insincere in his support of an NDP budget, but at least he gets some things right. Right?

Good Article

On Liberals and the "Ethnic vote".

Punjabi Youth

For a while now, I've been wanting to write a post about youth from Punjab. As most of us (western Sikhs) know, there is a huge crisis with Punjabi youth... one that involves drugs and general religious apostasy.

In a previous post I noted that while globalization has certainly impacted India and made many of the youth "western" in their tastes, it still seems as if they don't fit it once they actually move to the west.

I think there's a few reasons to explain this:

1) The root of everything is western envy. This is probably too simplistic, and I'm only writing about the youths that I've come into contact with, but from what I've seen, many Punjabi youth, while retaining a number of Punjabi customs (Bhangra, Punjabi music, etc.), look towards western (American) society with envy. American culture is something to be emulated, and this could of course be both good and bad. In one sense, it could be good, because to be frank, American society IS better than Indian society in general. In the other sense, it could be bad because of the abandonment of the good parts of Punjabi society as well as the bad.

2) The problem starts with assuming that western society is completely monolithic. I've had Indian relatives move to Canada, and they just automatically assume that I'm as familiar with completely useless parts of American pop culture as they are. Some could watch really messed up movies (Scarface, etc.) and that could build up their image of western society and combined with the western envy issue, dangerous consequences follow.

3) Following up on point 2, American movies and other forms of popular culture form an impression of what American society is actually like. A generally uniform image develops of what it's like to be "cool" or "hip" or whatever. And that image results in general conformity. No one likes to diverge from popular perceptions of what it's like to be cool, according to what they perceive the west to be like. Remember, I'm only speaking from what I've noticed and witnessed, which might not be very representative.

4) Following up on point 3, being different is not seen to be "cool". And in actuality, it is. What they miss out on western society is that it's much more diverse than they think.

Anyways, sort of gone off on a bunch of weird points. I sound like a sociology or psych major.

I just wish that many Punjabi youth were a bit more critical in their thinking. I just wish that they didn't so blindly accept portrayals in American movies as what it actually takes to be popular or cool. And if they just knew, most westerners would think they're a joke. What many of them do is undignified. They envy the west while abandoning the potentially much more dignified way of life available through being themselves, not pretending to be others. The only way out of this downward spiral with Punjabi youth is to preach to them that diversity is so much cooler than confirmity. That trying to make up their own minds of what's cool or popular is better than blindly accepting unrepresentative portrayals in American movies.

Western envy is alright - there's a lot to envy. Blindly accepting western culture out of that envy is often destructive... from what I've seen.

Multiculturalism - Not possible in Europe?

I think that sometimes the competitive global advantage of having the best state of race relations in the world is understated.

To find proof of that you wouldn't have to look further than this morning's article in the Globe and Mail on the spike in Dutch immigration to Canada.

Most of those emigrants, according to the people who help them make their moves, are leaving because of their complex and surprising feelings about the changes to Dutch society brought about by immigration.

For some, the desire to leave is a response to the immigrants themselves, and what many people here view as their violent, divisive, non-Dutch ways.

But just as many Dutch immigrants seem to be alarmed that immigration has turned their countrymen into angry, intolerant nationalists.

According to the article, the Dutch are leaving for two simple reasons. Either they can't stand the Muslims who are beginning to populate large areas of the Netherlands or simply because a lot of Dutch people can't stand the racism and tension that is caused in their country by Dutch nationalists.

Many would find the first category of people to have strange motivations to move to Canada, since many parts of Canada are also dominated by a large immigrant presence. However... most Canadians simply don't care about the issue. People here are a lot more "live, let live" in their view on society.

Since Canada is a relatively young country, it's nearly impossible for white people to credibly make a claim that Canada is a white man's land. In Europe, that claim is relatively easy to make - and almost understandable, since as I've noted before, out-of-state migration into Punjab from other Indian provinces causes Punjabis to get upset about the threat to their culture as well.

Anyways, the inevitable demographic gap that Canada will run into in the face of the baby boom retirement era may possibly be best averted by further ruining the demographic gap in Europe. Right?

In order to escape the race-relations tensions in Europe, many people, white and non-white alike may escape to Canada in order to live in a less tense environment.

A Comparison

Last Saturday, I attended the so-called "Moderate Sikh" Nagar Keertan/Parade in Vancouver.

The previous Saturday, I attended the so-called "Fundamentalist Sikh" Nagar Keertan in Surrey.

I just wanted to make a couple of observations and draw a couple of comparisons:

- The Vancouver event is noticeably not a religious event. I don't think there's much argument here. This is not to necessarily say that the people in Vancouver are somehow not as good as the people in Surrey, they're just not as religiously devout on average. In fact, I was accompanied by a number of people wearing traditional attire (baanaa) and having open, non-trimmed beards, and we were given weird looks, which is to say that there's even a suspicion of people who follow the rehit or code of conduct as prescribed by traditional Sikh doctrine.

- I'd also say that while I never claim to be fervently religious myself, most of the people in Surrey were obviously not very religious either. Meaning that most of them were not baptized and had no plans to become baptized. So what separates them from the moderate Sikhs? Location maybe? Maybe it's easier to be a "fundamentalist" in Surrey than in Vancouver? Maybe they're just more tolerant and acceptant of traditional Sikh doctrine even though they choose not to follow it themselves? I came up with a different possible answer though...

In 1984, there were no concrete "moderate/fundamentalist" divisions within the community (the media created the division in the late 1990s). Anyways, after 1984, when Sikh shrines were attacked in India, there was universal shock, anger and condemnation from Vancouver's Sikh community, religiously-devoted and religiously-moderate alike. Everyone was shocked. Everyone felt a sense of connection with their people back in Punjab. People felt a sense of outrage as if it was their own brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers who were being butchered and raped by the Indian army. I think, (although I wasn't born at the time) that this was felt all across the community.

What was the consequence of this? Previously non-devout Sikhs became devout. They felt a connection to their people and to their faith. This spanned all different kinds of Sikhs.

I have a feeling, that if another tragedy and injustice was inflicted upon the Sikhs of the Punjab, most moderate Sikhs would no longer feel connected to the tragedy. This is not meant to sound harsh, but I just feel that they're no longer connected to the panth, and they're separating from the Sikh diaspora and are often not even connected to mainstream Canadian society - meaning that they don't really have a nation to call their own.

They would rather buy into the lies of the Government of India and the lies that would be perpetuated through the worldwide media (due to a probable repeat of the media blackout that plagued Punjab in 1984) than to feel sympathy with the injustices carried out in India. Unlike the irreligious people who became religious after 1984, I don't think that phenomenon would once again impact the "moderate" side of the community. It would surely have an effect on the "fundamentalist" side of the community, who at the very least feel a connection to the panth as a whole.

Hmmmmm. I had a few other observations to make, but I'll make them another time. This post has gotten too long.

Might be wrong

The whole address thing might've worked a little bit.

Because it's not like Martin actually came across as "Presidential" or above the whole corruption issue.

I think he played towards his best strength - appealing toward the pity and sympathy vote.

He wanted to be Prime Minister from the time he was a little boy, remember? And then he pursued it mercilessly until he forced his party leader out of office.

Most Canadians, the ones who don't care at all about policy or anything substantive, might just cast their votes for the guy who would be incredibly depressed and broken if he lost an election.

Remember, this same guy confidentally bragged to Peter Mansbridge in December 2003 that he planned to be in office for "two full terms", (i.e. 8 years of majority rule) and that right there would be "sufficient" to retire on.

No one wants the Prime Ministership as bad as Paul Martin, and he might just win it back simply because of that.

Why in the in-office address will backfire

Jack Layton summed it up best today. It's too presidential. Too American.

Canadians might lean to the left, but they don't possess much appetite for the cult of personality that Paul Martin set up for himself (through raising expectations) upon assuming office.

This might sound cliche, but most Canadians generally hate all politicians.

We're a deeply cynical nation.

We're not generally a nation of believers at any level.

Not religiously, not in the potential of the individual, and most certainly not in our politicians.

I try to be a believer. I make an extra effort every day not to be cynical; to give people the benefit of the doubt, and if we actually had a semi-charismatic leader who seemed consistent and sincere in his or her beliefs, I'd likely succumb to that sad state of actually respecting and (possibly) admiring him or her, regardless of their political affiliation (think: Tony Blair).

Yes, I know... You don't need to tell me. I know I'm going against core Canadian values.

Dictatorial Powers! Woo Hoo!

Tony Valeri, the government House Leader has changed around the dates for the opposition days (in which the opposition parties could move motions of non-confidence).

And his reasoning, was just so undemocratic and dictatorial that it surprised me how open he was about it.

He claimed the following things:

1) The opposition parties want to call an election. (thereby admitting that his government does not have the confidence of the elected house)

2) That it was his job and his duty to make sure that the opposition parties did not get their way and to make sure that "parliament works".

That's right. We just heard the government house leader spit on the basic foundations of responsible government.

If the government does not have the confidence of the house, and if it uses tactical methods to prevent the house from expressing itself democratically, where does that leave us? Surely we can not claim to be a responsible democracy. Surely this proves and showcases the anti-democratic strains of the Liberal Party that have been so painfully obvious for all these years. This just takes it to a new level: allowing the government to carry forward legislation that does not test the confidence of the house, in order to keep this government alive as long as is possible against the will of parliament's elected officials.

This is.... like taking Canada back to 1840. Well, for the time being at least, until the opposition days come back.

Again, from Joe Volpe

This guy is totally the most obnoxious Liberal Minister I've ever witnessed.

Here's what he said today:

During the announcement, a handful of Sikhs protested against same-sex marriage. Volpe dismissed them as a Conservative plant.

I've alluded to this before, and people mistakenly thought I was calling Joe Volpe a racist. Joe Volpe is not a racist, he's just incredibly stupid. He's convinced himself so deeply that the Conservatives are full of racists that he can't comprehend why any immigrant, especially a visual minority, would ever support such a party.

According to him, Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus, or any other religious or ethnic group can't protest against the Liberal government's actions on their own, because they're simply incapable of doing so without guidance from some twisted Conservative conspiracy to fool ethnic voters by buying off a tiny minority of ethnic representatives to hide the party's true evil, anti-immigrant and racist nature.

That's something close to what a lot of Liberals believe. It's pretty out there and unbelievable, that they would believe something so outrageous, but they do.

Issues hunting

Now that an election is almost certain to come within the next month or two, I'm getting a lot more political searches coming into my site through search engines (I'm not including Gomery-related issues).

Some voters seem to actually be hunting for information on specific issues.

For example, now that David Kilgour won't be running in the next election, his likely successor, Tim (Singh) Uppal will probably be the next MP from Edmonton-Beaumont.

I was checking through my stats and I found two hits coming into my site from Google for "Tim Uppal abortion".

Breaking News

A senior Liberal tells the truth, and as usual, when that happens, it ain't pretty:

Conservative Justice Critic Vic Toews asked the following question today in the House of Commons, of Justice Minister Irwin Cotler:

“Mr. Speaker, the special counsel for the Minister of Justice believes that cultural communities in this country should be seen and not heard.

“Beryl Wajsman said in Le Devoir today that, ‘Every time the Liberal party needs cultural communities, it is for two reasons: as slaves during an election campaign or to buy tickets.’

“Will the Minister of Justice stand up and denounce these horrible comments, or is his special counsel just telling the truth about Liberal opinions of new Canadians?

Just a small note... so far, I can't find a single article about this story in any English language newspaper.

Update: It appears as if the questioning by Toews was misinformed. The Liberal in question was simply commenting on the state of race relations, and not actually passing judgment on ethnic or cultural communities. To the contrary, Beryl Wajsman appears to be involved in further integrating cultural communities and harmonizing cross-cultural relations.

Vasakhi

The Nagar Keertan (parade) was this past weekend, but the day is actually today.

For those of you who don't know, Vasakhi in 1699 was essentially the finalization of Sikhism as a distinct and unique religion, but for the sake of simplicity, we'll just call it "Sikh New Year's Day".

Quote of the Day

Whatever else history may say about me when I’m gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears; to your confidence rather than your doubts. - Ronald Reagan

Do you think Paul Martin will be able to say that confidently upon retiring?

If anyone thought he fear-mongered shamelessly in June of 2004, I think we're set to see an even more desperate and shameless Paul Martin in June of 2005.

The lameness of the separation threat

There are a lot of reasons to explain why the Quebec independence movement is the lamest in the entire world.

Mark Steyn, the columnist, usually says it's the most pathetic exercise in separation because of the fact that they want to separate and build up the exact same kind of country that Canada is anyway.

Here's another reason why it's the most pathetic separatist movement in the world: separatists in Quebec are so shameless in how they admit that they will call a referendum "when they can win it", thereby admitting the folly of their cause. By "waiting for the exact right time" to call a referendum, they admit that they want to separate when they play upon and perfectly manipulate the emotions of Francophones. That's all their saying, and it's shocking that they're so forthright about it.

The current "unity" threat is also entirely pathetic. Quebecers are treated like idiotic children by the federal Liberals. I've heard some Liberals actually imply that it is necessary to have the Prime Minister come from Quebec - essentially disenfranchising 80% of Canada's population from attaining the highest office in the land.

Anyways, they'll continue treating Quebecers like children who have to be saved from themselves, because of what they're likely to do with their democratic rights.

If this is true...

In the comments section of one of the posts on the Western Standard's group blog, someone has seemingly leaked the Liberal Party's talking points for the upcoming federal election (the 5th commenter from the top.)

If these talking points are legitimately authored by senior members of the Liberal Party election team, this should result in a national outrage, for planning an election filled with so much nonsense, misinformation and obvious deception.

Here's a sampling:

** The Cons are anti-immigration and don't like new Canadians; the Cons are afraid of the world and want a small, parochial Canada. The Liberal Party wants to embrace the world, and wants a big, welcoming, tolerant Canada. Liberals love new Canadians, and Liberals want to share our country's good fortune with others. The Cons will shut down immigration and make it difficult for new Canadians to re-unite with their families. The Cons will try to take rights away from new Canadians.

** The Cons thinks gays are second-class citizens; who's the Conservative Party's next target of intolerance and hate?

** The Cons want to take away Canadians' right to free and accessible health care. They want health care only for the rich.

** Liberals want to help Canada's aboriginals; the Cons want to keep aboriginals in poverty and ignorance.

** the Liberals are the party of Canadian values; the Cons are non-mainstream and extreme. The Cons represent divisive, bigoted, xenophobic, Canada-haters. If the Cons come to power, they would break up Canada by allowing Quebec to separate, by stacking the judicial benches with their like-minded ilk who hate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and by stepping on average Canadians by giving money to their rich friends.

** The Liberal Party is the party that has given good government to all Canadians. Canadians keep electing Liberal governments, because the values of Canadians are Liberal values, and Liberal values are Canadian values. The Liberal Party gave Canada its flag, its social welfare programs, its rights and freedoms, and its strong and growing economy. The Liberal Party is the party of fairness, equity, tolerance, and justice.

27 Years

Since the fascist Indian government acted in collaboration with the government-sponsored narakdharis in order to brutally murder Bhai Fauja Singh and 12 other Gursikhs.

More information here.

Must Read

Preston Manning and Mike Harris have published a strong, substantive and purposeful declaration, designed to guide the path that Canada should take in the coming century.

The tragedy is that even if Canadians elected a leader with the vision to enact such a powerful agenda, upon election, that leader would be suffocated by the political realities which would make real and positive change an impossibility.

Well, that's the way it stands right now, at least.

I remember hearing a saying or quote, something like, the changing of leaders is the joy of fools.

If Stephen Harper is elected Prime Minister this summer, and the odds are surely in his favour, it would only be a step forward if he has the resolve and character to undertake serious reforms in the way this country works.

Instead, he's likely to succumb to the disingenuous demagoguery that Paul Martin and Jack Layton will endlessly throw at him.

I'm usually an optimist, but I hope no one gets their hopes up THAT high.

Inquiry Vote...

In follow up to my previous post regarding the excerpts from David Kilgour's book which included those shocking Air India revelations, I should note that today he was one of only 3 Liberal MPs to vote for an inquiry (together with the entire NDP, Bloc and Tory caucuses.)

Update/Correction: 4 Liberal MPs voted against their government. The rest of the caucus voted against the motion for an inquiry.

Tara Hayer - Respected Journalist?

This morning, the Vancouver Sun ran an article quoting Dave Hayer, the son of Tara Hayer, upset over the chanting of Khalistan slogans at the Nagar Keertan (reported a couple of posts down). Dave was also upset about Sukhpreet Singh referring to Baba Jarnail Singh as a "shaheed" or a martyr.

Let me share some little known facts about Tara Hayer, the beloved "moderate Sikh" journalist, the one who was supposedly killed for his moderate activism.

Before and after 1984, Tara Hayer was a devout supporter of the "Khalistani" movement. He wrote a book, and this might be shocking, about how GREAT a Sikh Baba Jarnail Singh was. The entire book was devoted to the idea that Baba Jarnail Singh was one of the greatest Sikhs in history. His praise of Baba Jarnail Singh in that book, some might say, is even over the top.

After the assassination of Indira Gandhi, does anyone think he condemned "Sikh militancy"? No. From what I've heard, he handed out sweets to random strangers out of joy.

Does the media report any of this? No.

Yes, in the late 1980s he supposedly turned against the movement, but many community members, "moderate" and "fundamentalist" alike were suspicious of his change of heart. Hayer was brilliant at sensing change and recognizing the appropriate time for offering a pro-Indian government message to the Sikh community.

His newspaper tended to consist of little more than gossip and rumours. He was a poor reporter, by any standard. He slandered people regularly, including numerous political candidates for very immature and petty reasons.

Yes, obviously, it was wrong for anyone to have both paralyzed (in 1988) and killed him (in 1998), but being murdered doesn't instantaneously turn a poor journalist into a martyr. Killing an obnoxious journalist is not only completely wrong, but it also helped no one.

Update: Salim Jiwa of the Vancouver Province newspaper has done some excellent reporting about Tara Hayer's little known past, but unfortunately, I'm unable to find any of his articles at the moment.

Upperdate: Found something on Salim Jiwa's book site:

Another key supporter was Vancouver area Punjabi-language newspaper editor Tara Singh Hayer. The newspaper Hayer ran provided a vital propaganda tool for the Sikh separatist movement. Hayer is acknowledged as one of the founding fathers of Sikh militancy in Canada. In a June 1985 speech, Hayer called for a violent and widespread war against India.

Speaking of David Kilgour..

The Liberal MP pondering a defection to the Tories... (which, by the way, would be a tragedy for Tim Uppal who barely lost in the last election to him.)

Let me quote from one of his books titled "Betrayal: The Spy Canada Abandoned" which was published in 1994.

This is from Chapter 9 "A Bizarre Episode in Rome":

As Paszowski was returning to his hotel, his mind was full of what he had just heard. He was to blow up a plane and cause people to die. He started to pull all the threads together. He remembered Maduck stressing the government of Canada's troubles with its Sikh community and that it would be useful to discredit Canadian Sikhs generally. The Air India catastrophe off Ireland, which had killed more than three hundreds passengers, mostly Canadians, had occurred the previous year. Would a similar event benefit the government of India while subduing the Canadian Sikh community as the prime suspects in the Air India crash? It seemed very clear that high-ranking people in these countries and probably others were involved.

The governments of Canada, India and Italy, or perhaps rogue branches of each, acting in concert, had decided on this preposterous mission and had recruited agents like himself to help carry it out. There was no concern for human life, only political objectives mattered. There were two Sikhs in the group, but who knew their real identity or from which side they came? They were many other unknown factors about the mission, but Paszowski was certain he wanted none of it.

If he's not going to be a Parliamentarian anymore, might as well help him sell some books.

And maybe he could testify at the Air India inquiry? (assuming one goes ahead...)

Update: I should include one more excerpt from the same chapter:

CSIS badly wanted someone arrested following an attack on an Air India flight after its ineffective efforts to identify those involved in the June 23, 1985, disaster in which three hundred and twenty-nine passenders died off the coast of Ireland. In all likelihood, if CSIS was a party to this enterprise, it intended to abort the mission by arresting all involved before anyone could be hurt. Third, a controversial book by journalists Zuhair Kashmeri and Brian McAndrew, argued that rogue members of the Third Agency, an intelligence group allegedly created in the early 1980s to build support for Indira Gandhi's government by stirring up Sikh militants in Punjab, committed the 1985 catastrophe to discredit Sikhs world wide and those living in Canada in particular. If true, and the government of India vehemently denied any involvement, was there some involvement by the Third Agency in the Rome plot? If Paszkowski's account of what he encountered in Rome all invented, why were so many Canadian government representatives so anxious that he divulge no details of why he was in Rome?

Always confused me

A CBC poll published today says that opposition to Same-Sex marriage is a majority opinion within Canada (52%)

Why is opposition to abortion so far behind? (30-35% or so who call themselves "pro-life")

SSM, an issue that has failed to convince me that it would hurt anyone, is opposed by the majority of the population, while opposition to something which can definitively be said to hurt something (or someone, depending on your view) fails to register as much passion or opposition as I would naturally tend to imagine.

Or, there's obviously the view that opposition to the abortion-on-demand status-quo is actually much higher, but the media simply fails to report such insignificant and pointless details.

One last observation

I found it really entertaining when Sukhpreet Singh (Dasmesh Darbar's secretary) started shouting Khalistan Zindabad Jakarai when Gordon Campbell and the rest of the politicians were standing right beside him on the stage.

Nagar Keertan Observations

Today was the 7th annual Surrey Vasakhi Nagar Keertan....

Some observations:

- Good turnout. To me, it seemed bigger than in previous years. Mostly because of advertisements in skytrains and things of that nature, but also because they've ended the ridiculous practice of two Nagar Keertans in one day; one in Vancouver and one in Surrey.

- Unlike many other people I know, going to the Nagar Keertan makes me optimistic about the state of our (Sikh) community, not pessimistic. I see lots of teenagers and kids wearing baanaa (traditional dress) and doing different kinds of sevaa (service) and without the Nagar Keertan I would've never known these people existed. It's a good feeling to know that there's lots of Gursikhs outside of your own little world.

- When I was in Khalsa School, our Grade 10 class did a much better job of making the float.

- I remember during last year's Nagar Keertan, the entire time I saw Bhai Parminder Singh handing out Guru Nanak Academy flyers within the crowd of the Sangat. He didn't get any of his students to do so for him, and he never tried to act like he was above that kind of sevaa. Anyways, I just remembered that thought when I was thinking about the Guru Nanak Academy/Gurmat Centre float. Very well done.

- Moving onto more political observations, Gordon Campbell is a pretty impressive panderer. He himself was wearing a very fancy kurta pyjama (traditional dress) in order to win favour within the community. He still struggles when he says "vaaheguroo jee kaa khaalsaa vaaheguroo jee kee fateh" (the Sikh greeting) in his speeches. White people have real trouble pronouncing certain letters of the Punjabi alphabet.

- Wally Oppal's Punjabi vocabulary is pretty sparse.

- Carole James (leader of BC's NDP) is a pretty weak speaker, but that's okay, because Gordon Campbell doesn't blow anyone away either.

- Harry Lalli (former NDP minister of transportation) speaks Punjabi super fluently. He knows how to throw in gurmat-based (religious) references in his speeches as well. Pretty impressive I thought.

- There was an ARMY of "Team Igali" volunteers. (Danial Igali being the star liberal candidate in Surrey Newton.) The BC Liberal team looked pretty organized and ready to go. (The election is on May 17th)

- After coming back from the Nagar Keertan, I had a dream which was largely irrational and not worthy of explanation, but the sub-plot was that the BC Liberals had just barely won the May election, after being down during most of election night, and then squeaking out barely at the end. I know, I have really insane dreams, but I haven't dreamt anything political for many months.

Lack of Sikh Academia (Sikh integration into Canadian society)

A few times, over the past three years, since entering University, I've wanted to do papers on subjects related to the Sikh community in Canada or the USA.

Unfortunately, I was unable to do some of those papers due to a lack of sources.

In the two sociology courses I took (Introduction and Ethnic Relations) there were so many interesting topics that came to my mind, but I was unable to corroborate any of them with books or even articles.

For example, once, I wanted to do a paper on Sikh immigration patterns into Canada for my intro to sociology class, and although I found numerous general sources, I found nothing to support the point I was hoping to make, which was that a) since the 1970s, Sikh immigrants every decade since have been less educated and less entrepenurial. And progressively so. From my experience, Sikh immigrants who immigrated in the 1970s raised children which were far more integrated and "Canadian" in their outlook. Immigrants from the 1980s, from my experience tended to combine aspects of the 70's immigrants and the 90's immigrants. The 1990s immigrants SEEM less educated, less professional, less entrepenurial. They seem less likely to raise integrated kids. They seem far more likely to raise their children in neighbourhoods that are filled only with Punjabi speakers. They seem far more likely to have kids that do not know any English until Grade 1.

I graduated from a high school that was about 75% chinese. Most of my friends graduated from a high school that was 75% Sikh/Punjabi. Ghettoized communities only lead to less productivity and more stagnation from my view. People don't want to move on up, and why would they? It's usually nice to live in an area that's surrounded with your own types. And how do you prevent ghettoization anyway? It's impossible. You could promote a sort of cross-Canadian identity, but there really isn't one.

Immigrants who arrived in the 1970s lived in neighbourhoods across the lower mainland, indiscriminately. I think the 1980s saw small collected neighbourhoods, but in the 1990s, the whole ghetto thing exploded in the lower mainland. Many of British Columbia's Sikhs are concentrated in a few select neighbourhoods.

Also, yes, the Indian economy has picked up so it seems that less professionals are leaving India, but it also seems that Canada is losing out on all sorts of Indian professionals to America.

Canada attracts a lot of hardworkers and genuine immigrants, but the economic contribution of those immigrants seems (again, I don't have the sources to completely back this up) to help the industrial and physically arduous sectors of the economy far more than the skilled professions.

Even the uneducated types who immigrated in the 1970s and early 1980s seemed to integrate much better than the same type of people today. I don't understand why. Wouldn't the immigrants from the 1990s and today be more westernized due to globalization? It doesn't seem so. They seem far more likely to cling to carrying on their lives much like they were in Punjab, because they CAN. The infrastructure is in place that allows them to relive much of authentic Punjabi life. Which is largely fine by me in many instances, but I don't know... Having a strong and united Sikh community is important to me, but it's also important not to isolate oneself entirely from other segments of society. It breeds an environment of... not achieving as much success in the rest of society as is possible.

Right now, there's a few thousand Sikhs who attend UBC. That's quite a bit. I'm sure the community is on par or even above par when compared to other ethnicities, but it just seems to be slipping... It seems to me that a lot of young second-generation Canadians who are born to parents who immigrated in the 1990s do not have the necessary tools to really make it. I just hope I'm proven wrong.

For Political Junkies

Brought to you by the University of British Columbia's Election Stock Market.

Gurmant Grewal

Never really liked him all that much, but he seems to have gotten better at his job in recent years.

Either way, the accusations against him today are totally ridiculous.

He's guilty of bad optics and nothing else. It seems clear enough that he didn't intend to collect any money from anybody and that he was just trying to promote his Private Member's Bill.

Joe Volpe's desperate attempt to smear Grewal with no actual evidence will probably backfire. Elitists like Volpe can't stand the idea of non-white Conservatives, and he'll do everything he can to besmirch Grewal's reputation.

What is this I see?

The media seems biased towards the Conservatives in the past few days. Really, actually biased.

Well, not really biased towards the Conservatives as much as they're biased against the Liberals.

And some of the bias even seems unnecessary. On CTV, when two reporters were talking to each other (Robert Fife and Mike Duffy), one of them called this a "very exciting" upcoming period. Exciting??

What a strange choice of words.

I don't plan to complain...

Classy Move

Around two weeks ago, the United States government denied a Visa to a far-right Hindu Chief Minister of the Indian state of Gujarat.

Why did they deny him the visa? He was complicit in the 2002 communal riots that killed thousands of innocent Muslims, because he refused to use the state's police forces to prevent the murders and most probably, he had a hand in the organization of the riots himself.

The United States government made this move, seemingly, out of principle and out of respect for human rights.

They made this move even though it was met with harsh criticism from Indian politicians of all stripes.

Fortunately, we have a very simple contrast to be made with the Canadian government...

When the Canadian government pulled the Canadian ambassador out of Iran, in protest of the killing of a Canadian citizen (Zahra Kazemi), they did so by telling the Iranian government that it was only a temporary move and that the ambassador would surely be back, shortly.

And as they promised, the ambassador was reinstated a few short months later... right after senior cabinet ministers learnt of the documented rape and brutal murder that the Canadian citizen was put through.

Our government is simply incapable of offending human rights abusers.

Apparently the approach that involves treating them like everybody else has been perfectly successful.

(And remember, this approach has nothing to do with Canada as a whole, it has everything to do with our government - a government that will most probably and hopefully be shortlived.)

UPDATE: Hindu nationalists have turned their genocidal ways towards attacking American companies in response to the rejection of the chief minister's visa.

Useful reminder that many people don't care about politics

Someone asked me yesterday: So the leader of the conservatives commented on your blog?

Me: huh? no?

Person: Stephen Taylor?

Me: No... that's someone else.

Most annoying thing about the Canadian political media

When supposedly objective journalists interview other supposedly objective journalists and ask them subjective questions.... questions that require the asked to journalists to come up with formulated opinions on matters that no one wants to hear from them about.

"Yeah, the Canadian public obviously doesn't want an election right now...."

"Yeah, but I don't think that approach will work with the Canadian electorate, they won't buy it"

"Yeah, but they will always have to deal with the fact that the Canadian public thinks they're out of the mainstream on that issue"

"Yeah, I don't think that strategy will work..."

And on and on and on....

Report the news! No one wants to hear your commentary.

ERrrrrrrghhh

I can't stand how Scott Brison talks. (Canada's Minister of Public Works)

Again!

I read another article about how Gilles Duceppe told his staffers not to brief him on the Gomery inquiry because he was afraid he would break the publication ban.

Am I just completely uninformed on what a publication ban is, or is Gilles Duceppe along with the Canadian media really as dumb as they seem?

Gilles Duceppe does NOT break the publication ban by talking about the testimony, the MEDIA would be the ones who would be breaking the ban by REPORTING his comments. Gilles Duceppe's words do not automatically publish themselves onto newspapers - reporters actually have to write those words, those words then pass through an editor and then they're published, and if that ever happened, how would that be Gilles Duceppe's fault?

Similarly, if Gilles Duceppe were to stand up in the House of Commons in order to use parliamentary privilege in order to break the publication ban, wouldn't it be CPAC and the other stations by reporting his live comments who would be breaking the ban? Shouldn't they have a 5-second delay in order to prevent something like that?

Am I wrong here? Or is the Canadian media really this misinformed about what a publication ban actually is?

Not Fair

The American blogs that've been covering the Adscam publication ban are starting to really annoy me.

Yes, the publication ban isn't necessary and it's probably even wrong for Justice Gomery to have implemented it, but the way Canada is being portrayed is starting to frustrate me.

Justice Gomery did not implement the ban in order to help out the Liberal Party, he implemented the ban because he was legally obligated to ensure that the three "explosive" witnesses each received a fair trial.

Unlike what some American blogs are portraying, Canada's judiciary, is for the most part, free from political influence in proceedings like this. It's irritating when Americans try to portray Canada as some kind of third-world nation in which Justice Gomery implemented the publication ban because Paul Martin told him too.

The ban was implemented in order to avoid impacting a potential jury pool - something I consider unnecessary, but I also consider it unnecessary when uninformed American blogs and their self-loathing Canadian counterparts up here play along with the whole idea that Gomery implemented the ban to "protect his liberal bosses". That's ridiculous and they should know that.

Smoking Gun

An American blog has undermined Canada's publication ban on the Gomery proceedings.

Update: I de-linked, then I re-linked, because I don't think anyone (i.e. the government) can do anything for simply linking to somebody. By the way, more information on that same blog is forthcoming later today...

Stupid, not biased

The Tory justice critic, well aware that the punishment for violating a publication ban includes possible jail time, had little to offer.

"All I can say is that given what was said yesterday (Thursday before Gomery) the political landscape may be changing quite rapidly,'' MP Vic Toews said.

Wow. That's the dumbest piece of analysis I think I've ever read. (Unless I'm totally mistaken about Canadian law, in which case, Canadian law regarding publication bans is incredibly backwards.)

Let's see here, the Tory justice critic is unable to even DISCUSS the issue with the press? How would discussing the issue violate the publication ban? Would it not be the media outlets who reported his comments that would violate the ban? Is talking about the issue the same as publishing it?

That's the dumbest, most speculative possible motive to attach to Vic Toews' reasons for not wanting to talk to the media. Unless of course, Vic Toews owns a sizeable portion of Canada's media outlets. (Which is not the case.)

The publication ban applies to the media reporting on the proceedings, it doesn't (from what I know) apply to people TALKING about the proceedings.

Sometimes the bias that many of us perceive in the media is little more than general stupidity.