FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 14,076
- Points
- 1,160
I certainly appreciate the issue. It's a two part problem for Canada. Part 1 is that Canada needs immigrants to continue to maintain its population and grow its economy and Part 2 is that the mass of immigrants to the country come from "non traditional" immigrant sources and who are bringing a diversity of culture to the country. IMHO, the primary way to prevent the type of situation that @Jarnhamar puts forward (and it concerns me too) is primarily through a strong constitutional mandate of secularism and prohibition against religious-based legislation/regulation. Secondly, there needs to be a better control on balancing the influx of immigrants so that not too large a group of one religious or cultural group becomes dominant.I don't blame people for leaving shitholes, the places you only mentioned as having nice weather, to come here. We have/had a great thing going.
But you only have to look at the link @Jarnhamar posted to see what happens when critical mass of culture and politics swings.
I think we already have a wide swing in politics when you see some of the LPC policies many of which go too far but in their minds do not go far enough yet.
I spent eight years as an active bencher for the Law Society of Manitoba and think that I have a pretty good handle on how professional discipline works. IMHO, his governing body is nuts. I like Peterson. He's definitely a burr under the skin of many folks, but he asks the right questions. I disagree with some things he puts forward but find myself agreeing with many others. What's going on, IMHO, seems to be a witch hunt being driven by some very thin skinned folks. I'm not surprised the courts didn't intervene. The law is very strongly written giving administrative bodies wide discretion in how they handle their business.Amusing as that is, I fear he may goad "them" into accepting the challenge of creating an accredited profession of social media experts, mostly to be populated by misfits with low academic potential who have been educated in "grievance studies".
OTOH, I've been following some of the changes in the various provinces human rights legislation as well as the professional codes for Manitoba and Ontario and am somewhat concerned that they too are tightening up things which IMHO are becoming prohibitive of folks who take unpopular positions. The problem with all of these things is that like any group, these professions consist of two groups of people. The first group is the mass of them - the average Joe's who just want to get on with their jobs and generally do not involve themselves in governance. The second group is the dangerous one. That's that small group of radicals that wants to change the world (in one direction or the other) and are more than happy to get involved and vocally stand for election for positions on these governing bodies. From time to time there are enough of them to cause radical change. It's been that way for a long time and most of the changes of the past have been acceptable but we've entered an age where the boundaries are being pushed more and more to favour certain niche special interest groups.
Here's the answer. Get involved at governance at all levels and take control. And, I say again, strong constitutional safeguards for secularism now.