Fagstein » Multiculturalism

CTV Montreal gets kudos for diversity

Fagstein — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:17:39 +0000

Mutsumi Takahashi is really happy about CTV Montreal's employment equity award

CTV's Herb Luft drew the short straw today and got to report on his workplace being honoured by the federal government for employment equity. According to his report (video), the station scored straight As in all four categories: women, aboriginals, visible minorities and people with disabilities.

Though there are definitely women and visible minorities (Mutsumi Takahashi fills two of those slots simultaneously, as do Maya Johnson (below), Danielle Hamamdjian and others who aren't listed on the station's almost-all-white host bios page), I haven't seen any aboriginal people in visible positions, nor any people with disabilities (unless you count Stéphane Giroux's accent).

CTV Montreal reporter Maya Johnson: Brown and loving it

All that said, kudos to CTV Montreal.

Want to work for Jim Duff?

Fagstein — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:49:04 +0000

The Hudson/St. Lazare Gazette is looking for a new data entry person. Fertile women and people with non-Catholic religious beliefs should consider hiding those facts during an interview.

TWIM: Mitsou-inspired cultural blogging

Fagstein — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 18:01:14 +0000

My latest blog profile is the relatively new Comme les Chinois, by Spacing Montreal contributor Cedric Sam. It talks about Chinatown, the local Chinese community, profiles local Chinese people, and basically talks about everything that relates to being Chinese in Montreal.

The blog's name comes from Les Chinois, a 1988 pop single by Quebec singer Mitsou, the lyrics of which suggest Chinese people treat their lovers well. On his blog, Sam took a lyric from that song, "regarde les chinois" literally, and one of its regular features is interviews members of Montreal's Chinese community.

UPDATE: Kate blogs about Spacing's blogging about my article about Cedric's blog. So I figured I'd blog that.

We can’t accomodate freedom

Fagstein — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 05:50:17 +0000

Leaders of the FTQ and CSN told the Bouchard-Taylor commission that workers in Quebec should be forbidden from wearing anything that indicates what religion they are.

So I guess that means no more crucifix necklaces.

The article (I'm guessing it's more their position) is a bit confusing, later going on about how they just don't want employers to have to change any rules about safety or uniform codes in order to accomodate religious minorities.

It's odd to hear about a trade union arguing for restricting workers' rights, but then again these hearings are creating a lot of crazy ideas.

So when does the witchhunt begin for determining what constitutes a religious symbol? Does a black top hat make you Jewish? Does wearing a loose-fitting dress make you Muslim? Does a spaghetti-strap top make you a Pastafarian?

Census data doesn’t show anything new

Fagstein — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:05:45 +0000

As you might expect, the media went crazy over reports from the 2006 census that the percentage of francophones has dropped and the percentage of anglophones is up slightly for the first time in three decades.

The numbers are hardly staggering. The number of Quebecers who speak French at home is still over 80%.

The West Island Chronicle breaks down the West Island numbers, though it does so in prose so it's hard to tell what's actually going on. Basically, the West Island is following the trend, with little difference in anglo/franco ratios but a big jump in allophones through immigration.

Transcontinental to talk about their black friends more

Fagstein — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 07:51:28 +0000

Transcontinental, which owns 61 community weeklies in Quebec (22 of them on the island of Montreal), has decided to reverse its position banning brown people from its papers.

At least, that's the best I could figure out from this editorial, which is running in all of Transcontinental's newspapers this week. In it, the general manager of Transcontinental Newspaper Group, Serge Lemieux, has finally clued in to the idea that covering community issues involves covering cultural communities as well. Apparently it took the Bouchard-Taylor Commission into reasonable accommodation for him to figure this out.

The article doesn't mention exactly what they're going to do, only that they'll be "celebrating cultural diversity." In fact, it goes into more detail about what they're not going to do, specifically that they won't be publishing articles in "all the world's languages" because they find it "undesirable" to do so. Instead, they'll publish articles "exclusively in French or English (as the case may be)" (French versions of this editorial don't mention articles in English).

We'll see what they have in mind.

Speaking of nonsensical Serge Lemieux columns, this one, which in the same breath blames the media for oversensationalizing the issue of reasonable accommodation and says the commission looking into the issue has been a good idea, is also appearing in Transcontinental papers this week.

Ironically, both these articles serve to remind us, in case we didn't know already, how little local journalism actually comes out of Transcontinental weeklies. A large amount of content is syndicated across many papers, their websites are identical and even most of their logos have the same design elements. All that's left are some fluff stories about aging grandmothers, rewritten press releases about local events, and a couple of local issue stories written by overworked, underpaid journalists.

But I guess "celebrating cultural communities" will fix that.

Reasonable information on reasonable accommodation

Fagstein — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:49:50 +0000

La Presse has a myths vs. reality article on the Bouchard-Taylor Commission on reasonable accommodation. It includes some enlightening figures about religion, immigration and language in this province.

Naturally, the facts make it clear that pur laine Quebecers don't have anything to fear from a few thousand immigrants.

Concordian sorry for offending Muslims

Fagstein — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:52:18 +0000

The Concordian has issued an apology to Muslim students after a recent cover of the paper had the word "Allah" apparently used in such a way that was considered offensive to some. They realized this after copies of their paper went missing, apparently taken and destroyed by offended students.

Ironically, the editor says he she checked with two Muslims to see if they were offended before the paper went to print. Clearly he didn't check with fanatic enough people.

Can’t we just agree that the Charter amendment is a stupid idea?

Fagstein — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:47:54 +0000

Can we stop with the news stories about the moronic idea from the Quebec Council on the Status of Women to ban hijabs and change the Charter to make gender equality rights trump religious belief?

Apparently not, as more politicians with the foresight of moths are actually getting behind it, already coming up with ways of ranking our fundamental rights.

It goes without saying that experts with brains oppose the amendment, for the simple reason that when we start saying some rights are less important than others, we begin de-valuing them. They also point out that religious rights don't trump those of gender equality, and changing the Charter in such a way would not fix the problem, but likely have tons of other unintended consequences.

And even if that obvious flaw hadn't been pointed out, it's not like making the change would suddenly cause devout Muslim women to run out into the streets in bikinis, thanking us for allowing them the privilege of dressing immodestly.

It's a horrible solution that fails to solve a non-problem. Let's just agree to that and move on.

More xenophobia at the Bouchard-Taylor commission

Fagstein — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:30:08 +0000

The expressions of blatant xenophobia at the Bouchard-Taylor commission on reasonable accomodation is continuing with no end in sight:

The Quebec council on the status of women seeks to impose a dress code on all public employees, preventing them from wearing "visible religious symbols" like a scarf over their head or a little hat. Of course, it goes without saying that Catholics wearing crosses around their necks are specifically exempt. They get special treatment because they believe in the correct God.
The group also wants the Quebec charter amended to make sure that gender equality usurps religious freedom. This makes sense, but does that mean that women could sue for the right to become priests? If they're for gender equality in all religions, then they must be in favour of that as well.
Pauline Marois is opining that the solution to reasonable accommodation is ... wait for it ... Quebec independence. In a statement that sounds almost Third Reich-ish, she suggests that independence would remove "ambiguity" concerning what Quebec is. Instead, immigrants would see it as the racist, intolerant, French-only haven of backwards ideas we all know and love. And if these ethnics want to join us, all they have to do is rid themselves of their religion, their culture, their language and anything else that makes them different.

Bouchard-Taylor Commission legitimizes xenophobia

Fagstein — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 07:42:39 +0000

The news stories coming out of the Commission on Reasonable Accomodation (or whatever it's official name is) have really been eye-opening. It's no secret that we have paranoid xenophobes here. But this commission, going around the province (starting with small rural towns and ending in Montreal) seems to be legitimizing it.

Suddenly, it's no longer taboo to express an irrational, paranoid fear of immigrants flooding in to take over your country. To suggest that a few dozen quiet immigrants with cloth over their faces settling in a town hundreds of kilometres away is going to somehow radically alter the way of life in a place that is 96% Catholic might have once been considered ignorant racism. But now that the commission is coming along, it's giving these lunatics a forum in which to express their paranoia.

Tonight in a park, as I watched a free movie screening, one of the spectators shouted at the end, complaining that the film was not in French and that Quebec is a French-only province. The man was clearly off his rocker, and the crowd stayed silent in response. The young moderator of the evening, in an attempt at diplomacy, repeated an invitation to a post-screening party in the province's official language, but the man was still yelling as she spoke in his tongue. He wasn't interested in accomodation, he just wanted to yell.

Now if that same man were to walk into a commission hearing room and give those opinions into a microphone, suddenly it would become news. It would get into the newspapers, and would require acknowledgment and analysis.

I realize I'm generalizing here, but normal people have better things to do with their lives than attend these hearings. It's the unemployed crazies who want someone to blame for their crappy lives that come to these town halls and blame immigrants they've never seen or met.

Perhaps there's no alternative to this. We're dealing with questions of morality, and that requires public consultation. But it still irks me that we're giving an open mic to racist, xenophobic extremists and pretending like their opinions are justified.

CJNT: Multicultural American celebrity news

Fagstein — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:36:00 +0000

Once upon a time, Montreal had a low-budget multi-ethnic television station whose mission it was to provide a space where allophones could communicate. The station was called CJNT, and broadcasted over the air on channel 62.

Then the channel was acquired by a media company, which was in turn acquired by CanWest/Global. CanWest forced the station to declare bankruptcy, and has been egging the CRTC to allow it to reduce its ethnic content to put more commercially viable programming on instead.

The latest sad move in this direction came in April, when CanWest announced that its CH stations would be rebranded as "E!" entertainment (read: celebrity gossip) channels. That change took effect last Friday, and the channel's been running all sorts of "E!" programming from the U.S. network ever since.

But what about its commitment to 60% multicultural programming? The channel still runs its multicultural shows, many during prime-time (the CRTC rules require this). And in between, they provide E! celebrity gossip shows dubbed in other languages. Now you can hear about Britney Spears in Portuguese!

Not only is celebrity gossip bad in and of itself, but to take a channel designed to give a voice to those who can't get access to commercial airwaves, and use that channel (to the extent allowable by law) to broadcast unimportant information about people who have so much television coverage that they take great pains to limit it...

Kind of ironic, don't you think?

Needless to say, the only reaction this change has gotten in the blogosphere is bad: "Tripe."

Your manner of dress offends me

Fagstein — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:59:14 +0000

The third in Jeff Heinrich's series Identities today talks about what rules should be for minorities.

The poll of 1,001 Quebecers, which the Gazette is milking as much as it can out of, has somewhat predictable answers concerning whether women should be allowed to weir veils when teaching students, whether non-Christian religious symbols should be allowed in schools and whether non-Christians should be allowed time off work to pray. One third of the province is on one side of the debate, one third on the other, and the rest sway depending on the specific issue.

To give you an idea of how ludicrous this debate is getting, take a look at this:

About the only thing they are willing to concede is hijabs in public. Two in three - 66 per cent - think it's OK for Muslim women to dress like that.

So in other words, a third of Quebecers think it should be illegal for women to wear scarves over their heads in public.

The minute the government starts imposing a dress code on the public is the minute I start looking for jobs in Ontario.

The article also includes a few interesting tidbits at the end, including the realization that more than half of Quebecers think the media is exaggerating the debate -- more than twice the figure for political parties.

Everything you clearly don’t know about the Islamic veil controversy

Fagstein — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 07:19:10 +0000

The Gazette today began its five-day series Identities about reasonable accomodation, and their timing couldn't have been better. The Bouchard-Taylor commission is beginning its public consultation tour of the province (Montreal is the last stop on their trip at the end of November), and a pair of conflicting rulings have been issued concerning the rights of Muslim women to wear veils in upcoming provincial and federal by-elections.

The first article, Generation Accomodation ("Gen A"? Please. Can we stop making up terms based on some 50-year-old white guy's bastardization of popular slang? It doesn't make you sound cool. And let's especially stop it with "Generation X" spinoffs before we run out of letters.)... anyway, that article gives the first results of a survey of 1,001 Quebecers commissioned by The Gazette and Leger Marketing. It shows (PDF), unsurprisingly, that views toward minorities and accomodation are directly related to age, with older get-off-my-lawn types being less tolerant. It holds for almost every question, except those separation-of-church-and-state issues like hanging crosses in schools or allowing people to get time off work to pray.

This is paired nicely with an article by Jason Magder about how university students feel about the issue. In a nutshell: This is a non-issue and old people need to get over themselves.

One says yes, one says no

This week, Elections Canada ruled that veiled women may vote without removing the veil, provided they give two pieces of ID (one with their name, one with name and address) or have someone vouch for them. Meanwhile, Quebec's chief electoral officer is vowing to use special powers again to enforce the opposite, requiring them to display their faces before voting.

The Elections Canada decision has naturally provoked a lot of outrage. In Outremont, five women voted in burqas in protest to prove a point. I don't know what the point is, exactly, but there. Meanwhile, the Elections Quebec decision has had at least one person screaming RACISM!

It's all about election law

Why the difference in rulings? It's partly about the differences between federal and provincial election laws. Elections Canada changed their rules this summer to conform with Bill C-31, which "requires" for the first time that voters provide photo ID. Previously, the law did not require electors to present photo ID to vote or even register. In fact, for voters who received a voter information card in the mail, the law didn't require identification documents of any kind.

But the new law doesn't actually require photo ID. That's simply presented as one of three options. Voters can instead choose to present two pieces of non-photo ID (one with their address), or having another identified elector vouch for them.

The reason the law is so liberal is to make sure everyone can vote. Though the vast majority of electors have photo ID and permanent addresses, some don't. They could be homeless, or live in a situation where they don't drive, don't use medical services and haven't had need of a passport, or they could be living off the radar for all sorts of bizarre reasons. Still, in the tug-of-war between voter fraud and voter disenfranchisement, Elections Canada preferred to risk increased voter fraud if it means getting more citizens to vote.

So the decision to allow veiled women to vote by taking advantage of the other two options is entirely consistent with Canadian election law. In fact, it's entirely consistent with Canadian election law as passed by the House of Commons with specific changes to rules on voter identification. In other words, Stephen Harper's claim that it's Elections Canada who is "overstepping its bounds" and "making its own laws" is complete hogwash. Don't blame Elections Canada, blame the government. (As the CEO says, it's up to Parliament to change the law, not him.)
The regulations at Elections Quebec are somewhat more strict. There, you can't register to vote on election day, and they require photo ID. But there too, you can vote if you swear an oath and either provide someone to vouch for you or produce two "documents" to establish your identity. Technically there's little difference when it comes to identification, but the wording in spirit is more restrictive.

Still, it required special directives from the chief electoral officer to require women identify themselves, even though the law doesn't require them to present photo ID.

The controversy elsewhere

The controversy is over the use of the niqab, a veil which covers the face. It is part of the wider concept of hijab, which promotes modesty among women (and to a lesser extent men).

The controversy has already come to a head in Europe, where it has inflamed religious tensions, ironically in an area you would think would be the most open-minded when it came to religion.

Among the most interesting debates on the subject involve Aishah Azmi, a British Muslim teacher who was fired because she wore the veil in class. As you might expect, she filed a complaint that she eventually lost. The argument used against her mainly had to do with the idea that, because the students could not see her face (and her lips moving as she spoke), their education was suffering. It's a bit of a stretch, but still a valid complaint.

Meanwhile in Florida, Sultaana Freeman (an ironic name if I ever heard one) sued the state over the right to be photographed with her veil on for a driver's license photo. She too lost her case.

Islam isn't any different

Islam discriminates against women. That's not surprising. All major organized religions discriminate against women. And the more conservative or fundamentalist the view, the more discrimination there is. Unfortunately, many areas where Islam is practiced are underdeveloped and rife with religious conflict. (And others, like Indonesia, are simply dismissed in arguments.) So just like anti-gay war-mongering conservatives took power in the U.S., anti-women war-mongering conservatives took (or seized) power in many Middle-Eastern Islamic countries and impose their backward religious beliefs on the populace. And just like Christian conservatives who oppose gay rights, Islamic conservatives cherry-pick quotes from centuries-old religious texts and present them as direct order from God.

(This is one of the reasons I'm not crazy about organized religion. People do things that are immoral because they take a religious text (or religious leaders) at their word without question. A power this strong to make people do evil things is just plain bad.)

Nobody asked for this

Ironically, though most arguments in favour of bans on Muslim veils suggest they are trying to help oppressed women free themselves from the shackles of religious pressure, in few cases do people actually talk to these women before making their decisions.

So that's exactly what The Gazette's Jim Mennie did, kinda. He spoke to Salam Elmenyawi of the Muslim Council of Montreal and asked him some questions about the controversy.

When you talk to Canadian Muslim leaders, you start to understand a few things that put this in perspective:

There are only a handful of Quebec Muslims who wear a veil over their face constantly in public.
None of them spearheaded any campaign to gain this right. In fact, this debate only serves to bring negative attention to them that they don't want.
Even strict interpretations of Islamic law allow veiled women to reveal themselves for identification purposes, though some may require that a woman perform the identification.

I've met some Muslim women who have varying levels of coverings. They aren't stupid, or scared, or timid. And whether they're coerced into covering themselves by their religion, their families or their cultural communities is a question only they can truly answer. But the same could be said of anyone who wears a crucifix around their neck.

It's a question of rights

I'm not crazy about silly religious rules. Nor am I crazy about children being forced into a particular organized religion from birth. But banning niqabs doesn't change the social pressures being put on women. Instead, it merely takes away from everyone the right to wear what they want. It's a right that's being threatened on the other side of the scale too.

In U.S. cities, officials are debating bans on baggy pants. Atlanta councillors are using words like "epidemic" and "major concern" for pants that show underwear. Dallas is considering a similar measure. I'm not a fan of these pants, in fact I think they look idiotic. But just like bans being considered against wearing face veils in public, it's an attack on a right that's being waged solely because someone in power doesn't like the way someone else dresses.

Blogs have the last word

Reaction to this issue is mixed in the local blogosphere: Houssein says there are limits to accomodation. Kate says it's a valid issue but blown way out of proportion. And the Antagoniste points out that nobody in the House of Commons had an issue with the election law that allowed veiled women to vote when it was first proposed.

What do you think?

UPDATE (Sept. 11): The Globe spells it out clearly, as does The Gazette's editorial writers and columnist Don Macpherson.

Do gays have to be so … gay?

Fagstein — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 06:13:50 +0000

Every year after the Gay Pride Parade, some prude writes in to the newspaper complaining that the sexual flamboyancy is offensive and shoving the thick, throbbing gayness down everyone's throats is obscene.

This year is no exception. The token prude is Shamus Birch (the same Shamus Birch who's "every mother's dream for a son-in-law" and found Jesus after he was stupid with his virginity? Nah, that guy's in Britain), who is totally not a homophobe, but says gays "should stick to the old-fashioned way: Earn the respect and recognition on a person-to-person basis, not as an overdone circus demonstration."

(UPDATE: A brief but well-thought-out response in Wednesday's paper, and another one in Friday's)

Ah, remember the good old-fashioned days? When gays were shunned, blacks were slaves, and everyone died of tuberculosis by the age of 40? Why can't we have those back?

Well, blame Theo Wouters and Roger Thibault. Remember them? They're the old gay couple in Pointe-Claire who were harassed by their neighbours for being gay. This was back in 2002 when gayness wasn't as cool as it is now.

The Quebec Human Rights Commission has awarded them $10,000 from the kids who teased them.

Quote Wouters:

"I don’t think that a bunch of morons can chase us out. I mean, the black people, if they hadn’t stood up, they’d still be in the same position, and we feel for us, it’s the same way."

Oh gay. It's the new black. A flamboyantly-coloured new black. And apparently it's distracting to some people.

Just because it’s Facebook doesn’t make it news

Fagstein — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 02:21:04 +0000

Why is "someone expresses opinion about recent events on Facebook" always considered news? Yeah, there are Facebook groups (actually I found only one that has more than a few members) denouncing the rumoured Immigration Canada decision to discourage the traditional Sikh family names Singh and Kaur for new immigrants (a decision which the government clarified later wasn't actually the case). But there are more members in the group demanding that the Spice Girls do a show in Montreal.

When was the last time a paper petition with 500 signatures got this much attention?

Hate will cure our country

Fagstein — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 00:42:13 +0000

There are those in Canada (outside Quebec) who believe the best solution to the issue of Quebec separation is to simply let it happen. These people, tired of being asked to learn French in order to work in the federal government, think allowing Quebec to separate will turn Canada into the English-speaking-only paradise it is meant to be.

The website Canada Divided represents one of these groups. They think all Quebecers are francophones and all francophones are separatists. Without them, they argue, language purity can be achieved. French is not part of the "Canadian identity" and somehow represents "ethnic segregation" (a xenophobic website denouncing segregation -- now that's balls).

The website is pretty bare, just a web forum and some links to videos. The videos are posted to YouTube, including:

This one where a ~~skinhead~~ oppressed anglophone seems to think that the only people hired to bilingual public-sector jobs in this country are unilingual francophones
This one which warns that the media (which, as we all know, is part of a giant ~~Jewish~~ francophone conspiracy) is ignoring the growing threat of multiculturalism against our fine country.
This one points out for all us stupid people that the French civil code, which Quebec law is based on, is actually COMMUNISM, and that Quebec is secretly annexing the rest of Canada.
This one notes that all our health care funding issues are a direct result of the government wasting money promoting bilingualism.

Honestly, it's really hard not to invoke the obvious comparisons that come to mind. Couldn't they at least have picked a non-bald guy and had him speak in front of a non-black background, maybe have him smile a bit?

Three deaths for $40

Fagstein — Fri, 18 May 2007 18:45:35 +0000

I don't know what's saddest about this story (The Gazette has a less-conclusionary article):

That an ethnic cabbie's fear of being racially profiled led to him keeping information about (apparently) accidental deaths to himself
That guilt from this led to him committing suicide
That the lack of any family or friends in the city led to him not being discovered for months after his death
That just about every story mentions that the two dead Americans were "adult" "models" as if that mitigates matters at all
That a $40 unpaid cab fare led to a chase through a field late at night and eventually three deaths
That this story makes sense at all, and the actions, while perhaps not all justified, seem understandable
That the first question that comes to mind about this is "who takes a $40 cab ride to Laval to go to an after-hours club?"

Airport security to be proud of

Fagstein — Sat, 05 May 2007 00:58:02 +0000

According to Robert Fisk (here's a grain of salt), an expert on the Armenian genocide was delayed at Trudeau airport because he was suspected of being a terrorist. And among the evidence used against him was his Wikipedia biography.

Yeah.

CJNT: America is a culture, right?

Fagstein — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:07:42 +0000

It seems Global's second network of stations they don't know what else to do with is being rebranded. Starting in September, CH stations (including Montreal's CJNT-62) will become E! Yes, that E! Only it's E! in Canada.

This is significant for a number of reasons, the most distressing of which is that CJNT is supposed to be Montreal's ethnic station, but because ethnic programming isn't a money-maker, the station was bought out by a company which was in turn bought out by CanWest/Global. They petitioned the CRTC to agree to only 50% ethnic programming during prime time, and though they were denied that request, they still have quite a bit of U.S. network programming in their prime time schedule.

So what was once a struggling 100% ethnic programming station (albeit one that only broadcast for about 12 hours a day) will now include programming that Canadians clearly need on an over-the-air channel: Celebrity gossip and second-rate U.S. network TV shows.

They even have a video with Ryan Seacresty good ness (he even mentions our country's name!)

Fagstein » Multiculturalism

CTV Montreal gets kudos for diversity

Related Posts

Want to work for Jim Duff?

Related Posts

TWIM: Mitsou-inspired cultural blogging

Related Posts

We can’t accomodate freedom

Related Posts

Census data doesn’t show anything new

Related Posts

Transcontinental to talk about their black friends more

Related Posts

Reasonable information on reasonable accommodation

Related Posts

Concordian sorry for offending Muslims

Related Posts

Can’t we just agree that the Charter amendment is a stupid idea?

Related Posts

More xenophobia at the Bouchard-Taylor commission

Related Posts

Bouchard-Taylor Commission legitimizes xenophobia

Related Posts

CJNT: Multicultural American celebrity news

Related Posts

Your manner of dress offends me

Related Posts

Everything you clearly don’t know about the Islamic veil controversy

One says yes, one says no

It's all about election law

The controversy elsewhere

Islam isn't any different

Nobody asked for this

It's a question of rights

Blogs have the last word

Related Posts

Do gays have to be so … gay?

Related Posts

Just because it’s Facebook doesn’t make it news

Related Posts

Hate will cure our country

Related Posts

Three deaths for $40

Related Posts

Airport security to be proud of

Related Posts

CJNT: America is a culture, right?

Related Posts