|
|
| Subject: To Departed Canadian DC |
|
|
|
This one is for you DC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29g57XTYgLE&feature=related
These are for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRI-A3vakVg&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1RrncVgLFY&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4PGGz6xEK0&NR=1
HAVE A GREAT DAY DC
Roy
www.cvimmigration.com
[07-05-2008,10:52]
[**.52.217.64]
Roy |
|
(in reply to: To Departed Canadian DC)
LOL Roy.
Nice ones, good creation.
Thanks for sending.
[07-05-2008,11:56]
[***.254.208.246]
DC |
hypocrisy involved (in reply to: To Departed Canadian DC)
Dear Editor
In the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants (CAPIC) and the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC). administration "the negation of truth is so systematic. Dishonest accounting, willful scientific illiteracy, bowdlerized federal fact sheets, payola paid to putative lobbyists, ´CSIC news´ CAPIC networks run by CIC right-wing apparatchiks, think CBSA and IRB tanks devoted to propaganda rather than honest thought, the purging of intelligence gatherers and experts throughout the bureaucracy whose findings might refute the CSIC governance line -- this is the machinery of mendacity...
The point here is not the hypocrisy involved, though that is egregious. The point is the downgrading of truth and honesty from principles with universal meaning to partisan of Ghost consutlants ( parasites) as Phil Mooney calls them. No wonder the CIC administration feels no compunction to honor the truth or seek it; it conceives truth as a tactic, valuable only insofar as it is useful against one´s enemies
I am astounded to have your newspaper reputation tarnished by having this character Phil Mooney used your publishing to call ghost consultants parasites.
Have you asked Mr. Phil Mooney if he passed the CSIC Membership exam? He did not; in fact he is not even skilled to speak on behalf of CSIC. He was granted CSIC FREE Membership by being exam writer for few questions has no meaning or proper answer.
He is in conflict of interest with the CBSA Committee as he is one of their members.
He is a consultant who prepares his own affidavit that contains false information filed it to support CSIC chairman at any price.
He has been sued for millions of dollars for attacking ethnics and minorities- check the law suit S107845 in New Westminster Supreme court against him.
Is he a man of integrity? I doubt it very much.
Those who desire to treat politics and morals separately will never understand anything of either." So I wrote, and I do not agree with his philosophy. The practice of national president of CAPIC being unregistered lobbyist, his politics not only can but must be reconciled with the imperatives of honesty.
But what is honesty or dishonesty in CSIC or CAPIC politician? Is it possible for them to be honest at all?
The question goes to the heart of democracy. When CSIP the Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners write them off as dishonest, anti-democratic movements at CSIC thrive. Yet all CIC politicians know that ambiguity and compromise tend to prevail over universal truths. Sometimes one must choose the lesser evil. Our ordinary standards of decency and righteousness cannot always be applied - but not because cynicism and hypocrisy are all that matter in politics.
Consider, for example, that CAPIC national president and CSIC board according to their own members. Not only corrupt, but a notorious traitor to consecutive masters at the CIC, CAPIC was said to have failed to sell its own members only because there were no takers. Yet, although serially disloyal to CSIC board, CAPIC probably never betrayed CSIC.
CSIC and CAPIC Political dishonesty, it turns out, takes different forms. Let us identify the various types. One type is someone who is a dishonest man or woman to begin with. Such a person will be a dishonest leader, ideologue, or lobbyist in any circumstance.
Another type is the well-meaning dilettante. Clumsy and amateurish, the dilettante´s actions harm the interests CSIC aims to advance.
CAPIC Political "gamblers," on the other hand, put competence to bad use at CSIC board. Are they skilled? Not but ruthless, lack humility and eschew reflection. The CAPIC gambler´s close kin is the CSIC political "troublemaker," who pursues their soaring ambitions by any means necessary, whatever the risks and regardless of the cost to others.
The CIC political "fanatic" is also dishonest, for the CSIC chairman is blinded by the conviction that he is absolutely right in all cases. The fanatic is inflexible and inertial, a steamroller ready to flatten everything in his way. By contrast, the LSUC political "wheeler-dealer" is no less dishonest, for they lack what the law society called the "vision thing." They are spineless, devoid of principle, and retreats in the face of responsibility for clients.
Beyond these distinct types of dishonest Immigration politicians and unregistered Parasites lobbyist are more general Immigration political postures. Cynical forms of pragmatism take the lead, embodied in the principle that the end justifies the means whenever moral imperatives conflict with Immigration political interests.
At the other extreme is a naive, utopian, and moralistic stance that is equally dishonest. Its acolytes deplore the grit and relativism of Immigration politics and issue futile appeals for moral revivals. But things are not that simple. Canada?s History is not an idyll and Immigration politicians´ and ministers biographies do not read like the lives of the saints. Paradoxically, if all people were honest, Immigration politics would become redundant.
This does not mean that we cannot identify honest Immigration politicians at the IRB, CBSA or at the CIC when we see them. I described two types of bad Immigration politicians. The political moralist wants to "hammer out morality" in keeping with the requirements of Immigration politics construed as a cynical game. It is a label that easily applies to all the types of dishonest Immigration politicians described above.
My second type is the moral politician, who rejects cynical pragmatism but does not succumb to naive moralizing. An honest CSIP lobbyist is someone who regards Immigration politics as a tool for achieving the common good. I am not naive, and know that patience, compromise, and Immigration policy of small steps are often needed. Yet in pursuing partial goals I will not lose sight of higher objectives.
An honest Immigration Consultants, in short, pursues a pragmatism built on principles, on the courage to say unpleasant things, but always with a constructive attitude. Indeed, irresponsible criticism - the eagerness to expose and publicize a problem, unmatched by the willingness to propose feasible solutions - is perhaps the most common form of dishonesty in immigration practice.
This is why CSIP governance is so often the best test of Immigration political honesty. In democratic country of ours, if Immigration politicians who are critical of others while in opposition prove to be ineffective when in government or independent agencies if CIC, members of the industry can - and often do - punish their dishonesty at the CSIC election ballot box.
The toughest test of an honest Immigration consultants or Immigration politician comes when he or she must defend ideas that are unpopular but right. Not everyone passes such a test, particularly when CSIC or CAPIC elections are approaching. However, only the dishonest Consultants at CSIC equate politics exclusively with popularity.
At the same time, a moral consultant never succeeds single-handedly in ensuring the common good. Only when consultants or politicians support one another´s decency can they be confident that in critical moments for the industry, they can rise above their political divisions.
But Immigration political honesty is not the sole responsibility of the House of Commons or its committee members or politicians. Public opinion must play its part as well. After all, Immigration political honesty - and honest politicians - is more likely to take root in a society marked by a culture of tolerance, solidarity, and the equal enjoyment of individual rights. Political mischief-makers do poorly in such soil.
I am a political federal lobbyist in house and Immigration practitioner, first and foremost. So I know that no theory, no amount of analysis, can free a an Immigration politician from bouts of soul-searching, from troubling his or her conscience with questions about what is and what is not honest when confronting Immigration political choices. Above all else, the honest Immigration politician in the House of Commons willingly shoulders this burden.
I suggest before you post Phil Mooney comments in the future, you should know about his real vicious character.
Nancy Salloum
CSIP Chairperson
604-582-4887
Vancouver, BC
www.csip.ca
executives@csip.ca
Embassy, May 7th, 2008
LETTERS
Give Immigration Consultant Society More Power
I am writing to correct an error in your story last week ("Immigration Consultant Problems Rampant," April 30). In the story I was misquoted when you reported that I was recommending the set up of provincial bodies to regulate immigration consultants, like the provincial law societies. In fact, what I had said was the opposite.
The Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants supports the current regulatory model, in the form of a national body, namely the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC).
What I had said was that CSIC needs authority to go after unregulated consultants, like the provincial law societies have to go after those who practice law without being lawyers.
CSIC could get that authority from either statutory changes at the provincial level, or through federal regulation. Because immigration is a federal responsibility, the second option is preferable, instead of having each province try and implement statutory changes.
Indeed, the need for more enforcement power for CSIC was repeated in several presentations before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Our entire presentation to the committee focused on one point only. Even before dealing with the enforcement issue, unregulated consultants can be brought under control in the near term with a change in wording in the Instruction Manual.
Thank you for clearly and repeatedly stating the difference between "regulated" and "unregulated" consultants. Our preference would be to label these parasites "ghost agents" so the title immigration consultant would instill the confidence and respect that our 1,300 regulated members deserve. Then again, this is a problem we share with used car salesmen, telemarketers, lawyers and even politicians!
Phil Mooney
CAPIC President and CSIC member
Burlington, Ont.
Comment on this story
Embassy - Newspaper Online.
[09-05-2008,14:57]
[**.83.70.59]
X |
(in reply to: To Departed Canadian DC)
X, have you ever given a thought to write a book? You better try to do that cause, you wrote a long story.:):)
[12-05-2008,06:37]
[***.29.114.6]
Tariq |
|
