Monday, March 08, 2010
Miley Cyrus confirms its new relationship
(BUM) While remaining unobtrusive, Miley Cyrus has confirmed she visited Liam Hemsworth.
After months of speculation and after having been photographed several times together, Miley Cyrus has confirmed she was in a relationship with her costar of the film The Last Song, Liam Hemsworth, reports People.
During his time on the red carpet at the Oscars, we asked the singer and actress if she actually attended the Australian actor, to which she replied "yes." With shyness, but she added: "Maybe."
If Cyrus and Hemsworth are actually a couple, but they decided not to appear together on the red carpet while the young star of 17 years was accompanied by her mother, Tish.
Recall that Miley Cyrus had a class yesterday (March 7) at the Academy Awards hosted by actors Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin at the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles.
Link
Labels: Art and culture
From the urgent and compelling need for an atheistic religion, by Marie-Eve Martineau
Believing in God and life after death, it's pure (small) madness. Anyone who simply believes (without proselytizing) is a victim. As one who teaches broadcast and religions is a dangerous madman.
Why? Why are so intolerant of me?
Believing without evidence or explanation is characteristic of the child. Naturally, because it would take too long to explain, and because their reason (reasoning) is still mostly underdeveloped. It is a product of evolution: only those who believe and obey without thinking have survived and have therefore passed their genes. Unfortunately, the transition to adulthood, many of them continue to believe everything they are told without thinking too much ... and a small portion of them have understood the advantage to take advantage of the credulity and obedience. Hence the classical division of the society of men among those who have power, those dealing with religion, and others, all other more or less slaves but also producers of wealth consumed by the first two classes.
Believing in God, this is mostly part of a community living and enjoy a set of rules to respect and assistance of others. In short, a religion is primarily a binder allowing a community to remain united. At the cost of nonsense and a little madness, everyone was happy to feel part of a group that protects, albeit at the cost of the loss of real freedom ... because in those times, be free is to be alone, driven group, condemned to wandering and death.
But times have changed. The concept of community, once limited to a small group of men, then a tribe, then to a small nation, has exploded and these religions because they are naturally expansive and invasive, have conquered other peoples and d other territory, often by force, but sometimes also because they brought an improvement to other people. Finally, "better" means in relation to a small difference or a different concept of good and evil ...
And, in this scheme, therefore no place for the Atheist, one who has realized the folly of man's original and wishes to settle his life clearly face the inevitable: death. No place for the unbeliever, for the unbeliever, for ... many words are to describe the traitor, who has criticized the dogmas, one who has dared to say what he thinks, he who has dared to show others how madness they are. For to those who believe, understand and admit he was wrong his entire life is unbearable because what could he tell his children? he was wrong? because what could he tell his parents? they were wrong and they have been deceived? and how can he live once rejected by her community? assumed they would not kill him before he goes to spread the bad word ...
So for those who want to live out the foolishness of God, they are doomed to lose the benefit and comfort and help from a community. Here they are "lost" alone in front of the crowd seeking the friendship of others who, like them, have realized the folly of men, and want to preserve it, they and their families. But against the insidious and continual proselytizing religions, even those of them that might seem most impaired or wiser, they are disarmed. So for them to meet the gregarious qu'al'Homme need to get together with equal and co-religionists, there remains the solution to regroup in a new kind of church, atheist, whose goal is to provide its members everything that men have a natural need: the loving gaze of friends or caring, solidarity, support in the event, the contribution of a culture and a reflection on life and the world death: an atheist spirituality and rituals for all major stages of the life of a Man: Birth, transition to adolescence, transition to adult life, decision to start a family, and life after separation departure of children, sickness, old age and death. We all need that. But not stupid to believe a benevolent God or life after death reassuring. It is not reason to put forward. For the reason of man is very weak against what his unconscious mechanisms led him to do. But he is moving to another stage. The time is past stupid beliefs. Faced with this new world, full of science but also threats to our species survival time, we must invent and develop a new way to live together, in which spirituality has an important place, and free of stupid ideas whether Judeo-Christian or Buddhist or Hindu, or communist, or ... Otherwise, it is certain that no organization in communities strong atheists, religious madness of reconquered land and will again pay a high price for atheists their desire to have the freedom to think and daring to say clearly what they think of the folly of putting all his hopes in life after death.
Link
Labels: Atheism, Marie-Êve Marineau
Humor, by Tania Tokarski
I want to start this diary speaking of humor.
Humor is not the same for everyone; some who find jokes about "not pretty" fun, other drug funny ... that worse, some may not like being ridiculed in any class in favor of the joy of others! No, but it's true! Be challenged by someone you do not know, because three minutes late, and get yelled at as if it was a major fault status is beyond me. How can I find it funny? How can we ask to see, or to undergo such a 'show'? The purpose of humor is also to make people laugh, and laugh, he must be happy. However, we can not laugh when we try to integrate and be accepted as the first reception one receives is that of a bear licked badly in need of teacher attention!(Sorry, dear teacher. You said that you could insult. Hi hi, I apologize.)
Following this unfortunate episode, I met a student who had had a similar experience unfortunately because it was, too, arrived late in the course. This is understandable when we do not yet know the College and it is in its first week in which he must locate themselves. Having each recounted our misfortunes to another, we decided, although I felt some discomfort, to complain to the Head of Department of Sociology. He was very attentive to our requests and assured them that the professor was not at all bad, but did not argue the fact that he had perhaps gone too far. (After a joke that hurts, usually you apologize, he did not.)
In any case brief. In short, this story ends where I wanted not to have gone to see the teacher talk with him before coming to his 'boss', so to speak. So, chance would have it sometimes, we met the teacher and I arrived toward the elevator. He was unaware of the harm he had done and assured he would try to be calmer in his outbursts of passion. *laugh*
Finally, I like it. Fortunately, the communication exists.
Labels: Tania Tokarski
Rights & Democracy demonstrates its financial transparency, by Francis Chartrand
The International Center for Human Rights and Democratic Development announced today that it has engaged the firm Samson Bélair / Deloitte & Touche to conduct a forensic audit of financial transactions between 2005 and 2009. In announcing the interim president, Mr. Jacques Gauthier said that the purpose of this audit was to ensure full transparency regarding the proper use of taxpayers' money.
"Democracy requires an obligation to explain that while rights require accountability of work," argued Mr. Gauthier. "As an institution that receives 11 million dollars annually federal government, ie taxes Canadians Rights & Democracy has a duty to report on how these funds are spent. In addition, we have a responsibility to ensure they are properly managed."
The acting president also said that neither he nor the board does have evidence of misconduct individually. However, financial reviews have identified transactions that require the attention of forensic auditors. "We asked the professionals to give us the exact picture of certain contracts and transactions made over the last five years."
Representatives of the firm Samson Bélair / Deloitte & Touche, who undertake the audit immediately, should be able to present a report and recommendations within three weeks. "The results will be released as soon as possible, that is to say when the report is accepted by the Board of Directors," Mr. Gauthier said finally.
Rights & Democracy (International Center for Human Rights and Democratic Development) is a non-partisan organization of an international mandate that was created in 1988 by the Canadian Parliament to encourage and support the universal values of human rights and promote democratic institutions and practices around the world.
Rights & Democracy seeks to promote, in collaboration with individuals, organizations and governments in Canada and abroad, human rights and democratic rights as defined in the International Bill of Human Rights.
For further information: or to arrange an interview with a representative of Rights & Democracy: Prima Communications, (514) 654-1742, primacommunion@gmail.com
Link
Labels: Canada, Francis Chartrand, Freedom of expression
On the firing line, by Louis Prefontaine
"I'll make you lose your job." Another missed test by the child, another round of telephone threats from the mother. Tania scoop. Again. When teaching in classes for immigrants, we must know the only truly useful thing: the other is always right. Not you, not your country, not your safety rules, your secularism, your gender equality. No. While it takes the edge when you are dealing with a minority of fundamentalists who, like this fanatical denying the rules of his school, seeking to undermine the foundation of our rule of law while scurrying to make life unbearable to those who try to help.
Tania has taught one year at this elementary school northeast of town, specializes in the integration of newcomers. She could continue, but it was too difficult emotionally. Worse, he has shed his assessment with a score of zero to five levels of ethics and accusations of racism from the director and his assistant. Her crime? Wanting to teach geography to a child, having expressed his failures and his parents have asked her shoes running shoes during physical education.
"Toronto is in Lebanon, my dad told me, no no no you're a liar!" throwing the young veiled girl eleven years with his teacher in the middle class. Tania showed him the world map, he pointed Toronto, then Lebanon. "No, not in Lebanon, Toronto. Your father may have been mistaken." No, Tania, her father was right. Muslim Dad is always right. You should know. And so the next day he landed in your class, the lunch hour, violating the most elementary rules of the school, to insult you, call you a racist, and you t'invectiver threatening.
Shortly after that, a trip to Lebanon to eight weeks for the little girl. When she returned, she took a long delay, so that its results were not up to his classmates. Meeting with parents and the director. The diagnosis? No, the little one has no delay, no she has nothing to learn. It is you, Tania, the racist, nasty feminist who wants to learn the ideas of liberation of women to her child, so says a hysterical mother, a Canadian Halifax converted to the virtues of submission to the husband and soft body. The director asks you out, and nothing will ever be the same between you and him thereafter. His confidence, you had lost.
Months passed, with insults bi-weekly inexorably following each test, each failure of a girl who was taught that the world is what Papa-Muslim said he is. One day, the physical education teacher called Tania and told him about the child: "it does not remove his boots, because she said it was wrong that could see his ankles." Tania reassured the little girl told him that Allah does not punish, it was simply putting his running shoes and playing with his friends. She eventually convince her, but at what price? The next day she was again summoned to the principal's office, where she gets insulted again, where his own superior told her she should have accepted the girl involved in the activities below (even though this is extremely dangerous and contrary Regulation). Literally, he said: "between school rules and rules of the religion of man, what are the rules of religion gentleman who must prevail". And that's what happened thereafter, thank you to the repeated threats of prosecution from the sad individual.
How were you dictated returned with a large "X", Tania, because they were referring to Christmas or Easter? How many times have you had to adapt yourself just to survive here in your own country, where you should just be an example to newcomers?
At the end of the year, rather than having defended his professor, the director and his assistant, a Lebanese origin, decided to get rid of it as best they could. At the School of immigrants, Tania, yet she was the daughter of an Italian immigrant, had not understand the basic lesson: in Quebec, are immigrants who make the law and our rules do not apply that 'to those unfortunate enough to be white and French. The others, they released the insult of racism, they appeal to the virtues of multiculturalism, they call their lawyers, they are based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to impose their rights and freedoms.
Yet "there, there are so many nice people," says Tania. I think it's flat, because every time we talk about it with stories about completely stupid. The nice ladies who send you of baklava, that we do not remember." The problem, it is precisely there: nice people and bad people, confused, violent, psychotic, exist in every culture in every nation. In Quebec, however, just one of those fanatics are using ethnic status to which he immediately gives a semblance of credibility. If you're white and francophone and you act this way, we'll put you outside the school, call the police, call the DPJ, and take you to the position you pursue. If you come from elsewhere, we will let you make the name of multiculturalism, in the name of reasonable accommodation on behalf of the understanding.
Like it or not, it is a war. A fight between our values, our conceptions of space and public freedoms, and those unscrupulous individuals who believe they can use our openness against us, who sink our doors open and then occupy our homes. And in this war on this front, there are people like Tania, who, if she dropped the education of children, however, continues to learn our language and culture to immigrants and adults involved, by taking balls hate every day to improve our society and to promote greater cohesion in the respect of our common values. Tania is a heroine in her own way in the trenches of multiculturalism, the weapon of our carelessness in hand.
And so we finally decided to support it, respect those who, like her work to the integration of immigrants? If we finally said, loudly, that our values and our culture are not negotiable, as our law applies to everyone and we do not have to suffer the insults of those who refuse? If anyone dared to require newcomers to respect our institutions and those working to help them achieve in our house every day?
For if we do not at the level of integration by daring to impose our values, we will have to act in the number of immigrants to receive. And that's a different debate. Necessary, but oh how much more difficult to accept for the apostles of multiculturalism which has accumulated failures as Quebecers medals at the last Olympics. Until then, thank you Tanya, and good luck.
Link
Labels: Human mistake, Louis Préfontaine, Multiculturalism, Religion and fanaticism
A police niqab? No thank you, by Michèle Ouimet
What a beautiful case for throwing gasoline on the feu. A immigrant of Egyptian origin was expelled from his French courses at CEGEP Saint-Laurent because she refused to remove her niqab, the full veil that hides all face except the eyes.
This is not the college has decided to expel the pupil, but the office of Immigration Minister Yolande James.
The college has done everything to meet the lady who could wear the veil and make presentations at the back of the room, his back turned to students. During one lesson, she even asked the men to move because they faced him.
His claims were clearly unreasonable, yet the story has dragged on for months. The Ministry has finally decided she had to remove her veil, if it was the expulsion.
She chose deportation.
Why this issue has made it to the office of Minister James? Why the college Did not make the decision alone?
Because the issue of reasonable accommodation is always delicate, too explosive. A minister who is involved in a class to solve a problem of sailing! It is micro-management. Yolande James said she consulted the Prime Minister Charest before making his decision?
This story also shows how institutions are disadvantaged when demand spiked lands on their desk.
The Bouchard-Taylor commission has nothing resolved? However, Quebecers have played a huge part in its work: 17 regions visited, 800 witnesses, 900 written submissions. An incredible success, a great group therapy.
The two commissioners have delivered a report intelligent, nuanced. A brick of 310 pages that the government was quick to hide in the back of a cupboard, merely delivering a vague contract of citizenship that immigrants should sign their arrival in Quebec.
Since the beginning of the year, reasonable accommodations haunt the Liberals. Jean Charest thought getting rid of this troublesome debate by creating the commission Bouchard-Taylor.
Mistake.
***
When my colleague Vincent Marissal told me this story niqab, I told myself: "Oh no! yet the debate on reasonable accommodation!" I already saw the defenders of secularism rigid hands on deck to require the adoption of a law banning the full veil in public.
The France wanted to adopt such a law. Although the vast majority of French MPs are against the niqab and the burqa, they have recoiled from the idea of the ban. How to apply the law? By giving tickets to women who go around in burqas in the streets?
Who wants to have a policy of the niqab? A bit obnoxious, not to a country that prides itself on being democratic?
In Canada, the reality is different. A law is unthinkable, because "it would clearly be against the Charter of Rights, which guarantees freedom of religion," said the lawyer Pascale Fournier, a professor at the University of Ottawa.
Unnecessary, therefore, to go to Supreme Court. It has nothing to do with our time and our money.
???
A teacher or a lawyer might wear a headscarf that leaves the face uncovered without endangering the secular character of the school or court. With the burqa, we fall into another universe.
Someone in authority should not wear the full veil, because it is a strong symbol of inequality between men and women, like it or not Muslims.
By cons, secular society is not threatened because a woman is walking down the street or the subway with a burqa. Anyway, they are only a handful to wear the full veil. It does still not pass legislation to fifty women are often poor and isolated.
The issue of reasonable accommodation can not be resolved with legislation that would trace a line clear. It will always be the case by case basis.
The government can acquire the tools by creating, for example, a "board of harmonization" to assist institutions facing a complex problem of accommodation, as suggested by the Bouchard-Taylor commissioners.
If I were Jean Charest, I would go for the report of the commission in the back of the closet. Whether he likes it or not, the problem is far from settled.
Link
Labels: Arab World, Islam, Québec, Secularism
A Muslim expelled from a course because of niqab
Unlike the hijab, niqab covers the mouth. A teacher of Cegep St. Lawrence said that its port limited interaction skills of a student taking a course in French. This archive photo was taken in Egypt.
Vincent Marissal
La Presse
The Department of Immigration of Quebec was reached last November, to expel a French courses for immigrants a woman of Egyptian origin who refused to reveal his face in the classroom.
After months (February-November) attempts to accommodate the part of the teaching and direction of Cégep Saint-Laurent, the situation became tense may cause clashes within the institution.
According to what the press could learn a senior officer (Roger Giroux, CEO of francization the Immigration Department) intervened personally to ask for the umpteenth time, the lady to remove her niqab (which leaves appear as eyes), otherwise it would be expelled from the course. She refused, demanding a written confirmation from the Department's position, what she got.
In the letter, Mr. Giroux said that the reasons were clearly explained to students excluded that it could pursue its way with her niqab but it had plenty of time to complete the training online.
The lady has complained in the days before the Commission on Human Rights, who will study in the coming months.
The whole story began in February 2009 when the Egyptian immigrant was enrolled in a French course at CEGEP Saint-Laurent. She has the permanent resident status in Canada. To register, she provided a photograph of her face was uncovered and she met without niqab, the evaluator francisation services.
So far, so good. Problems arise however when the first courses because some men are in the class and she refuses to disclose in their presence.
Conciliatory, teacher supply, in agreement with the direction of the college, hide with her in a corner of the class to do exercises dialog. For these special sessions, the student agrees to withdraw her niqab.
An oral back
This arrangement is flawed, however, soon struck the very objectives of the course, which will facilitate exchanges between students, oral presentations and scenarios. In addition, the woman refuses to increasingly comply with the agreement with his teacher. The latter, along the direction of CEGEP Saint-Laurent, reminds him that for educational reasons, it is essential to see the faces of students in trade in order to correct their speech and to see their facial expressions.
At one time, we push the same accommodation to enable the student to make an oral statement at the bottom of the class back, because there are men in the room.
The relationship between Muslim students and a teacher, but also with the rest of the class gets tough on the edge of open conflict. We finally reached the point of no return when the lady, after a pause, asked three men to move because they face it in class, arranged in U by the teacher for precisely facilitate trade. The men and the teacher agree, but the situation became untenable and clearly we are heading towards a confrontation.
According to our sources, students veiled while systematically refusing to uncover her face, even alone with his teacher, and she shows more and more militant, even aggressive.
Therefore, the case "goes" to the department and even to the office of Immigration Minister Yolande James, who follows closely with its staff, its evolution.
The ultimatum and the expulsion of the student were decided at the political level, with the intervention of a senior official and the concurrence of the Minister James.
File politically explosive
Many Quebecers applaud the government's firmness on this issue, but politically and legally, the ground is slippery.
At the time, in several European countries, a debate rages on religious symbols, especially the veil (hijab, niqab or burqa), Quebec intervenes for the first time in a classroom. Two similar cases have arisen recently in French classes for immigrants at Cégep de Sainte-Foy, but both students were bent to the demands of the course.
Compete by the principles of secularism and equality between men and women, pillars of the policy of the Quebec government, and freedom of religious practice, recognized by the Quebec and Canadian charters. This is a crucial test for the government and the first strong political reaction from the Bouchard-Taylor commission.
In Quebec, it thus follows the case closely. Our sources say the government is hopeful of winning its case before the Commission on Human Rights.
"We believe having done everything reasonable to accommodate this person, but there is a limit, and we have taken here. For us, it is important to send a clear message", said an informant close to the case.
In his complaint to the Commission on Human Rights, students veiled invokes freedom of religious practice. The government, for its part, says that wearing the niqab is incompatible with the educational goals and that many attempts have failed a reasonable accommodation.
Quebec also remember that all immigrants are engaged in writing for the month of January 2009 to respect Quebec values (including gender), they are learning about these common values and they must learn French.
If they are unwilling or unable to follow these courses in person, newcomers can do online, and all information on common values is explained in several languages, including Arabic, on the ministry website Immigration.
Conciliation or hardline?
This is not the political decision that is subject to a test with this case, but also throughout the approach established by the Charest government in the wake of the report of the Bouchard-Taylor commission.
According to all recent polls on the issue of reasonable accommodation, the majority of Quebecers think their government shows usually too conciliatory.
In recent years, highly publicized cases, the SAAQ particular have fueled the controversy and ignited the open-line programming.
In government, as the debate rages between proponents of conciliation and the supporters of hard-line debate spiced by the positions of opposition parties.
It is unlikely that the government legislates on wearing religious symbols. Legal advice circulating in some state departments are, however, communication problems and security-related wear the niqab and burqa.
Another known case is currently before the Commission on Human Rights. Sondos Abdelatif, a Muslim girl who was training to become a prison warden, filed a complaint in 2007 after being dismissed by Correctional Services of Quebec because she refused to remove her hijab.
She advocates freedom of religious practice while his former employer says that wearing the headscarf poses risks to the security guard.
Link
Labels: Arab World, Québec, Religion and fanaticism
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]