daniel h. said:
I'll try to rephrase my argument--here goes: 44 years ago, Canada was over 96% white, and spoke 2 major language--English and French. Canada was considered to be English-Canadian and French Canadian. That WAS Canada. It wasn't perfect, but it was first-world, and a pretty thing. Canada's immigration policy restricted immigration from Africa and Asia, because it was seen that only people of European descent could assimilate into one of Canada's two cultures.
THEN, the liberals of every western country started making dramatic changes. They opened our immigration to the third world, and closed our European recruiting offices. They gave money to new immigrants to keep their own culture, and told the majority cultures they were racist if they opposed massive chnages to their nation's character--Pierre Trudeau's immigration policies were also thought to weaken separatism--by flooding Quebec with federalist voters who vote Liberal and oppose separatists who are racially motivated.
Actually the reasoning behind it was because the people in charge at the time held this completely unfounded belief that western europeans were somehow superior to other peoples of the globe (both genetically and culturally).
The reason this changed was becasue the Trudeau government noticed that this policy was the very definition of racist, and that Canada, being a modern, scientific nation, needed to give up such utterly stupid and unfounded beliefs, and thus brought in the points system, whereby applicants were assessed (theoretically) soley on their own personal merits, rather than on some completely and utterly unfounded preconcieved notions we had about other people.
By setting up the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they Americanized our politics, and led to individual "identity politics" ahead of the common good, which is collective rights, not individualist "gay rights", "minority rights", "women's rights" and all that B.S.
Well, sure if you call the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen" - otherwise known as "Le Declaration de 1789" - Americanising.
And I feel that the charter does a good job of balancing the rights of an individual and the common good (rights only go so far as to be "reasonable" and the government does have the power to override them if necessary).
The Charter did NOT guarantee the right to freedom of speech, as "Anti-hate" laws can have you thrown in jail for speaking out against government policy.
No, your right it does not "guarantee" the right to freedom of speech, and yes anti-hate laws are an aspect of this. The act itself does not really support this accusation:
Here's the link http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/H-6/31435.html#rid-31443
You'll notice that it begins by saying: "For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted."
Nothing about the government.
I challenge you to provide presidence regarding your comment that speaking out about the government can land you in Jail, as I've never heard of it (unless of course you disclose national secrets or something of the like).
The Charter DID mean that immigrants or even non-citizen refugees have more rights than long-time Canadians. The charter of rights meant that we coundn't discriminate, because "all cultures are equal"--but in truth all races and cultures are NOT created equal. Not at all.
Actually was the charter says is that we are not allowed to discriminate on a series of categories it lists, but it further says that if any one of these particular groups is in more need that other gruops, that additional aid may be rendered to them. The last is something I personally disagree with. So no, no one has more rights than others, but some groups are selected for special assitance.
Regarding your last statement.... I'm not even going to touch that one. Please provide backing for such a statement as that.
In other words, we should not have a charter forcing judges to dictate politics to our politicians.
They never do. They give judgment based upon legislation, precidence, and in some cases where these do not exist, what they feel is the most reasonable route. If you want to stop judges from doing this last bit, try making legislation that prevents them from NEEDING to do so. If what you are saying is that you don't like what the charter is causing these people to do, then try and get it changed.
We should NOT treat cultures equally in our own country, because Canada had two very good cultures of its own in the past which are currently being purposely destroyed by immigration on purpose to "reduce nationalism".
Your own opinion, I guess you are entitled to it. I would seriously suggest you reconsider this though.
If what I am saying still makes no sense, you'd have to visit Toronto or Vancouver especially to know what is actually happening. The media is still pretty quiet about it. They are calling for more immigration even though Vancouver is already being referred to as an "opportunity" by the Chinese, in other words--a Chinese colony.
I'd like a source for this one. Oh, and I go to vancouver 2-3 times a year.
Toronto was over 99% white in 1961 and was a nice English-Canadian city. It is now the most multicultural city in the world, and is now only about 45% white in the old city of Toronto (drop from 99%--45% in only 40+ years) and will be under 50% in the entire megacity by 2017.
I'm confused by your continued emphasis on skin colour. For example, have you ever heard the term Indo-European? It referrs to a group of people who originated somewhere around the Ukrainian stepps. We share common language beginnings, and most of all are of common descent.....East Indians and Europeans are actually the same thing.... Norman davies has a good chapter on this in his "Europe: A History". In the end what this means is that skin colour really doesn't have to with anything that is actually of any merit to consider when judging a person.
Vancouver is now an Asian city--a terrifying reality for those who are convinced that they still live in the DOMINION of Canada, and not a Chinese colony. This is nothing more than the destruction of the true Canada and the government is getting away with it.
Actually last I checked Vancouver was definately Canadian. We've had lots of other settlers focus in on certain areas in our history. (I hope that when all the Ukrainian settlers came to Edmonton it was the destruction of true Canada, or maybe Dutch settlers around Red Deer).
I oppose all hyphenated Canadianism like "German-Canadian" etcettera but care little as long as people assimilate and speak English or French as their first language while in public.
Why should they care what language you want them to speak?
The funny thing is, Toronto is now such a diverse city that terms like "Brazilian Canadian" or "Mexican-Canadian" are no longer used. People now simply say "Brazilian" or "Mexican", as there is no point using a hyphen when newcomers are outnumbering and displacing the traditional Canadians.
Do you live in Toronto or are these just stories you are hearing?
I disagree with you that the Charter is not doing its job--it is doing its job. It is treating foreign cultures in Canada as equals, as if Canada had no culture of its own. Many are brainwashed and actually believe this. The Charter is treating minority cultures as equals--which NATURALLY will suppress and oppress the majority culture. The Charter of Rights is straight out of cultural communism.
Cultural communism, that's a new one to me. Can you please explain it?
In the end though I think we have seriously diverged from the intended topic of this thread, namely whether or not we should continue to grant Quebec special status within Canada.
