Bad timing for Ruby Dhalla?

There seems to be a fine line between a slave and a caregiver. The former Liberal critic for youth and multiculturalism, Ruby Dhalla has been accused of hiring two foreign caregivers illegally and mistreating them.

The two women were hired to care for Dhalla's mother in early 2008. But instead of doing care-giving work, they say they spend 12 to 16 hours a day, five days a week, doing manual labour for only $250 a week. Some of the work duties included, shining shoes, washing cars and cleaning Dhalla's brother Neil's chiropractic clinics. The two employees also claimed their passports were taken from them. Yup, that's right, the Dhalla family had seized their passports. this has trouble written all over it. Clearly, these two employees were not hired to offer care.

Ruby Dhalla consistently denies the allegations and says she is "shocked and appalled."

In her defense, I can see how someone would take advantage of the situation to get some extra money. . . and maybe even five minutes of fame.

But, the awkwardness surfaces when people who support Dhalla start scratching their heads, asking themselves "why did she resign" As of March 6th 2009 Ontario MP, Ruby Dhalla resigned in order to, as she puts it, "focus attention on clearing her name."

Timing is everything.

What Canadians think of Sikhs, Christians and Muslims

Canada has always been proud of its vast amount of cultural and religious diversity. "Canadians like to think of their country as a model for the world of how all sorts of people can get along together" But when it comes to the major faiths other than Christianity, Canadians fall short and miss the mark for being a liberal nation.
According to a recent poll conducted by Angus Reid Strategies (2009), only 10% of Canadians thought Christianity teaches violence. But an outstanding 45% of Canadians believe that the Islam religion encourages violence and 26% felt the same about Sikhism.

A whopping 45% of Canadians believe that about the Islam religion-really? This sounds like a bad case of ignorance if you ask me. Clearly, this 45% is rooted from all the negative images seen in media; biased coverage of large armed conflict in Islamic countries is a huge part of the problem. The same with Sikhism, the media coverage of the1985 Air India bombing has definitely put out a negative legacy of the Sikh community.

Clearly, the two religions deemed most violent, Islam and Sikhism have their work cut out to persuade many Canadians that they are not inherently violent. The amount of work they need to invest will depend on the various regions in Canada. For instance, the one region that views Islam faith to be encouraging violence the most is Quebec with 57%.

What I find most ironic is 30% of British Columbians find Sikhism to be a religion that encourages violence. What’s so ironic about that, well British Columbia is a province that has one of the highest concentrations of Sikh population in Canada.

Does this mean that people in BC who are Sikh are not into their own faith or are there too many people in BC who just don’t understand Sikhism?

“For a country that often boasts of modern identity based on acceptance of diversity, this poll suggests that’s still a goal to strive toward rather than an achieved reality.” (Macleans’s,09)

Options given in a Capitalist society...?

In the words of marx....."Material conditions determine consciousness NOT the other way around"

So it's not the consciousness that determines our material conditions...its not something within our mind that triggers us towards materialism....its the material conditions..."bourgeoisie"..... which trigger our consciousness......it is the mass media that work to produce the "False consciousness" in the working class

do any of you think this Capitalist society is much needed.... or would Communism be resolution ?

Equality? Freedom?

REally all of the following terms have no real value, especially in todays society. Why is it that many people think they are Free ? or they have freedom ?? Do they really ? I don't think so! We live in such a society that helps give one the illussion that he or she has freedom but the bottom line is that we have the opposite. Ahhhh Capitalism ! We are always bound to fulfill a certain role. A studen role, a friend role, a citizen role. So when does the freedom come into play here ? Even when trying to express ones own individuality ...can that really be done ? Is the TV...aka media not drawing us more so towards generalism vs. individualism. I mean look around ...people are wearing really the same thing I am.....and I am wearing what everyone else is. I guess some would call this the "norms" of society...and that is definitely true. If I were to go into the mall tomorrow wtih knee high shorts....big sweat shirt, no make up, hair all messed up...... I would definitely be breaking a norm. And as we all know "Breaking a norm doesn't feel so good, for I am an out caste then" So again...where is the freedom?

My favorite quote of the day

"There is always a negotiation of context in fact to face interaction"

Context does control Language

context really does have control over our language and the usage of language. It determines what type of language is to be used and when.

Take for example A young student who has been studying in a library late one evening and she is now ready to call it a night when in walks a friend who has just finished studying and is headed back to the dormitory. He asks "care to go for a walk" the young student decides to walk across campus together....

How would this encounter be different if it took place at noon on a crowded public beach on a hot summer day? would you say different things? talk louder? laugh more? Walk slower?

All human communication is affected by the physical circumsatances under which it takes place whether it be a job interview, a pizza party, a classroom speech, or whatever...

People's words and behaviour are controlled (changed) according to the context. !

Quote:

"Every function in the child's cultural development appears twice: first on the social level, and later, on a individual level. "

Lev Vygotsky