Council Member
Posts: 1,560 
Location: Changchun, China
Location: Changchun, China
January 11th, 2006, 11:27 PM
[b]
[b]
Quoting
Sorry I have to seriously disagree here. An agreement is an agreement (inasmuch as some like to ignore agreements when convenient!), regardless how old it is. And this agreement was signed between the British and the First nations before Canada even existed. thus, Canada is in fact founded upon these agreements. If these agreements are ignored, then Canada breaks its side of the Contract, and the land goeas back to the natives, entirely!
The fact that we're actually debating land agreements that were signed over a hundred years ago is head-shaking to me.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 4,465
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
January 11th, 2006, 11:45 PM
I agree entirely, Machjo. We, as citizens of Canada, should feel compelled, in my opinion, to ensure that the agreements between our founders and our First Nations people are honoured whole-heartedly.
I agree entirely, Machjo. We, as citizens of Canada, should feel compelled, in my opinion, to ensure that the agreements between our founders and our First Nations people are honoured whole-heartedly.
Member
Posts: 102
Location: Toronto
Location: Toronto
January 12th, 2006, 08:32 AM
Obviously this thread has gone off in several different directions.
However, I have noticed several people posting assertions that Canada favours group-rights over individual-rights.
There have been two posts referring to the Charter which overwhelmingly deals with individual rights but does have a clause in section 15 that allows the government to take measures to ameliorate a discriminatory situation of a particular group.
I would argue that Canada, in most instaces protects an individual's rights. However, unlink the United States we do have allowances for situations where protecting group-rights above one individuals rights will serve a greater social good.
That being said, for all the people who are claiming that the Canadian Charter protects group rights over individual rights I'd be particularly interested in seeing where this argument is founded in legislation.
Obviously this thread has gone off in several different directions.
However, I have noticed several people posting assertions that Canada favours group-rights over individual-rights.
There have been two posts referring to the Charter which overwhelmingly deals with individual rights but does have a clause in section 15 that allows the government to take measures to ameliorate a discriminatory situation of a particular group.
I would argue that Canada, in most instaces protects an individual's rights. However, unlink the United States we do have allowances for situations where protecting group-rights above one individuals rights will serve a greater social good.
That being said, for all the people who are claiming that the Canadian Charter protects group rights over individual rights I'd be particularly interested in seeing where this argument is founded in legislation.
Hall of Fame Member
Posts: 10,505 
Location: The Evil Empire
Location: The Evil Empire
January 12th, 2006, 09:48 AM
Machjo
Machjo
Quoting
Agreed, there are differences and very important ones. Assimilation means to be absorbed, incorporated, to become synthesized, to become just like everybody else, to have no identity any longer whereas integration means bring different parts together, to blend, to orchestrate into a whole, yet not lose essence or identity. You can they say that integration is the essence of American society as evidenced by hyphenated Americans. And in the historical context you mentioned above, it is of up most importance in my opinion that integration or assimilation cannot be forced upon, it evolves naturally or it simply doesn’t work.
I think we need to make a distinction between 'assimilation' and 'integration'. There is plenty of evidence of how 'assimilation' leads to ethnic conflict. Just observe the First Nations. Observe how Quebec reacted decades ago when they noticed that Montreal was assimilating to English (they introduced Bill 101!). Observe the bitterness of Uighurs who are now not allowed to study cources in their native language in the University of Xinjiang, and the refusal of Uighurs in Shanghai to speak to their Han counterparts in Chinese if they can speak English at all, etc. You need to do a little travelling to areas where cultural assimilation is in fact occurring (e.g., Montreal, Urumqi, Lhasa, and I'm sure many other parts of the world. I wouldn't be surprised if there are even places in the US where there might be a certain pressure to learn Spanish which might lead to some resentment as well.
Quoting
Here is the problem I have with what you said, first one needs to be able to define culture, culture is very complex and emboldens many social interactions, music, art, food, traditions, language, religion etc… It is impossible to “integrate” all these cultures without losing some of the interactions. Hence in order to preserve culture, you must create a multicultural society or a diverse society which we agreed already is inherently divisive. So the question now arises, which is the lesser of two evils? Integration or Diversity?
I agree that to have peace, we need a common culture. But it's not up to one group to impose it on the rest. Sure it would be wonderful if all Canadians could agree on a common second language, or agree on a common set of cultural referents, be they Christian or otherwise. But if such a common culture is merely imposed by the majority, conflict is sure to ensue (an example would be if Canada suddenly decided that from now on English was to be its sole common language or, as really happenned, when Quebec decided on French whithout really consulting with their minorities). Yet to lack a common culture, as is the case with Canada, with the French doing their thing, the English theirs, and the natives just being squashed in between, obviously dialogue is difficult due to the lack of common ground. Possibly a compromise would be a commonly agreed upon second language and culture.
Quoting
To find common ground you need to be able to incorporate many aspects of many many cultures into one “melting pot”. I can’t see any other solution to it.
I in fact meant what you just typed here. I agree 100% that this has nothing to do with legal rights or lack thereof, but rather human nature, and no law can do anything to stop that. Therefore, it's wise for any government to proceed with tact and wisdom, care and caution as it attempts to establish a common culture, as it follows a middle road of moderation while avoiding the extremes. To impose a common culture would be just as damaging as not trying to establish a common one. The only solution, inasmuch as many, especially among the majority, might hate this, is to find common ground through mutual consultation. If everyone can agree to some common auxiliary culture, then we can finally have a common foundation upon which all are willing to build. But that's not easy.[/b]
Hall of Fame Member
Posts: 10,505
Location: The Evil Empire
Location: The Evil Empire
January 13th, 2006, 11:52 PM
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms at Twenty: The Ongoing Search for Balance Between Individual and Collective Rights
And
Beverley McLachlin - Chief Justice of Canada
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms at Twenty: The Ongoing Search for Balance Between Individual and Collective Rights
And
Beverley McLachlin - Chief Justice of Canada
Quote:
GROUP IDENTITY
Secondly, Canada’s Constitution states that rights belong to individuals and individuals as part of groups.
"We have some positive endorsement of religious rights in our constitution, while you have absolute separation of church and state," McLachlin said.
"We come from a different historical background, where the French-speaking Catholic province of Quebec united with the English-speaking Protestant province of Ontario.
"Under American law, the individual is the focus; but in Canada, the individual is seen as part of a group, and the right to maintain that group identity is protected."
Secondly, Canada’s Constitution states that rights belong to individuals and individuals as part of groups.
"We have some positive endorsement of religious rights in our constitution, while you have absolute separation of church and state," McLachlin said.
"We come from a different historical background, where the French-speaking Catholic province of Quebec united with the English-speaking Protestant province of Ontario.
"Under American law, the individual is the focus; but in Canada, the individual is seen as part of a group, and the right to maintain that group identity is protected."
jimmoyer
Posts: 5,038
Location: Winchester Virginia
Location: Winchester Virginia
January 14th, 2006, 12:33 AM
If you think about it, any enhancement of group rights
enshrines any grievance that group has. This then
leads to separation and independence at the expense
of unity ---- regardless of whether you think that group
is right or wrong.
In the end if the individual is not held more important
than any identifiable group then you also have the
problem of accountability in that responsibility for
one's own action is watered down or blamed on the
problems and vicissitudes of said group.
I believe you must hold paramount the INDIVIDUAL
who must own his own actions and no excuse must
be passed on to a victimized group or an aggrieved group
right or wrong.
It will sink the law and all ethics into an endless morass
of discrimination and reverse discrimination ---- an endless
spiraling cycle of reaction and overreaction.
If you think about it, any enhancement of group rights
enshrines any grievance that group has. This then
leads to separation and independence at the expense
of unity ---- regardless of whether you think that group
is right or wrong.
In the end if the individual is not held more important
than any identifiable group then you also have the
problem of accountability in that responsibility for
one's own action is watered down or blamed on the
problems and vicissitudes of said group.
I believe you must hold paramount the INDIVIDUAL
who must own his own actions and no excuse must
be passed on to a victimized group or an aggrieved group
right or wrong.
It will sink the law and all ethics into an endless morass
of discrimination and reverse discrimination ---- an endless
spiraling cycle of reaction and overreaction.
