How Canadians Live Peacefully Together

[elevennevele]

The hate on these boards can not prove better why their is conflict between people. Canada is a multicultural nation. A nation of many different people from every part of the globe and we have been able to live in relative harmony, peace with one another for some time while maintaining the cultural variety due to (dare I say), the Liberalism of our ideals as a society.

When I make that statement, you can be a member of any of the three main political parties and the statement doesn’t mean you support the Liberals. No, I’m not referencing the word as the political label of a party. I’m referencing it as the dictionary term as understood by the english language.

Quote:
Oxford: 5. tolerant, openminded, especially in religion and politics.


When you can see countries with much much less cultural diversity fighting one another; when you can see countries made up of similar ethnic groups but dissimilar religions at eachother’s throats, we all should remember why Canada, up until now, has been a great success through our diversity.

It has not been accomplished by hateful attitudes. By hardline views of morality, right and wrong, good and bad, black and white. It has not been accomplished by the idea that “might is right”.

— It has been accomplished by dialogue, by tolerance, by openmindness, by equality, ethics over morality (different people hold different interpretations of what is moral), by respect, by not being prejudiced, and ultimately by peaceful conduct.

All our three main political parties, and many other small parties can have the qualities of such views or can fail at them.

However, I see people who expouse the hardline views on the world and I continually see the world getting worst and worst and the hate between fractions grow and the more hardline people get, the more they prove their own vision because their approach to life then helps to create the hostilities, the intolerance, the hatred. It becomes a self-fulfilling approach to life.

The wars, the who’s good and who’s bad, the idea of severe punishment rather than fair punishment, collective punishment, religious intolerance, superiority, entitlement, etc all fail us as a society and as a world community. And I say that for everyone and to everyone in ANY of the political parties.

 

[Simpleton]

I once read a paper on how institutions like the Children's Aid Society feed the need for such an institution. The idea was that it was in the best interest of the institution for children to be in a state of peril, because it fostered the self-serving needs of those that are necessary to "help." It was offered that the cause of removing children from abusive situations was doomed to fail, because success in reaching the objective would eliminate the need for an institution like the Children's Aid Society.

Do you see where I'm going with this? The belief is that the Children's Aid Society must play a role in ensuring that children continue to exist in abusive circumstances. Simply because the people employed in the effort to help such children, are more interested in preserving their own jobs and livelihoods, than they are with eliminating abuse toward children. This was cited as a direct cause of child abuse, and an engineered flaw in the design of the system built to assist abused children.

When I see propaganda spewed by such organizations, and think about the consequences of their statements, I begin to see the stark correlation between the desire to help one's self at the expense of those one is charged with protecting. I illustrated a similar example in another thread, whereby I suggested that the cause of assisting sexual assault victims has a correlation between increased sexual assaults and fewer victims seeking justice. In a sense, the idea of educating an ignorant public, serves only to further the ignorance.

What a tangled web we weave...

 

[Jay]

When you can see countries with much much less cultural diversity fighting one another; when you can see countries made up of similar ethnic groups but dissimilar religions at eachother’s throats, we all should remember why Canada, up until now, has been a great success through our diversity.

Because before the Liberals invented "diversity" or multiculturism, we were always at war.

The French and the English in this county are the perfect examples of how "everyone just gets along" because their different.

It's a load of BS.

It has not been accomplished by hateful attitudes. By hardline views of morality, right and wrong, good and bad, black and white. It has not been accomplished by the idea that “might is right”.

— It has been accomplished by dialogue, by tolerance, by openmindness, by equality, ethics over morality (different people hold different interpretations of what is moral), by respect, by not being prejudiced, and ultimately by peaceful conduct.

Don't forget hate speech laws and hate crimes....trampling on other people's rights and giving more to "diverse" people than not so "diverse" people....race quotas etc, affirmative action and free rides courtesy of the tax payer. Then there are our draconian gun laws that don’t allow you to protect yourself from that “diverse” group of Jamaican gangs in Toronto. You can't forget these most important policies affecting how we all just "get along".

 

[BitWhys]

I once read a paper on how institutions like the Children's Aid Society feed the need for such an institution...

ah yes

extended Public Choice Theory

and the reason that strain of logic doesn't apply to such hallowed institutions as the military and the "War on (fill in the blank)" is...

?

 

[elevennevele]

Do you see where I'm going with this? The belief is that the Children's Aid Society must play a role in ensuring that children continue to exist in abusive circumstances. Simply because the people employed in the effort to help such children, are more interested in preserving their own jobs and livelihoods, than they are with eliminating abuse toward children. This was cited as a direct cause of child abuse, and an engineered flaw in the design of the system built to assist abused children.

If the institution is trying to ensure that children continue to exist in abusive circumstances, then that is the fault of the institution. Not a fault in the idea of helping people or children.

I once heard of a firefighter setting buildings on fire because he loved firefighting and being regarded as a hero putting out the fires. Does that mean we get rid of firehalls across the country? No, of course not.

There are also priests that molest young boys, but it shouldn't be about collective reasoning then to condemn all religious institutions.

There are a lot of humanitarian groups that do a lot of good for people.

This is somewhat going off topic however.

 

[Simpleton]

I once read a paper on how institutions like the Children's Aid Society feed the need for such an institution...

ah yes

extended Public Choice Theory

and the reason that strain of logic doesn't apply to such hallowed institutions as the military and the "War on (fill in the blank)" is...

?

It does apply. That was my point. There will always be war because militaries are essential to the economy. You can displace innocents in a war torn nation, or you can displace hundreds of thousands of soldiers. War is essential to the viability of the army and the nation-state.

For the longest time, Canada has been engaged in dismantling its military. Only recently, and under the Conservative government, is the Canadian military getting renewed attention and embarking on a path of growth. Arguably due to growing discontent among the Canadian population.

 

[elevennevele]

Because before the Liberals invented "diversity" or multiculturism, we were always at war.

You said it, not me. But I believe it is the obligation of either Conservative, Liberal, or New Democrat to preserved the values which maintain such peaceful "diversity" or multiculturalism. This value is not a Liberal thing.

Don't forget hate speech laws and hate crimes....trampling on other people's rights and giving more to "diverse" people than not so "diverse" people....race quotas etc, affirmative action and free rides courtesy of the tax payer. Then there are our draconian gun laws that don’t allow you to protect yourself from that “diverse” group of Jamaican gangs in Toronto. You can't forget these most important policies affecting how we all just "get along".

Laws that prohibit hatred are a good thing in our country. How could we combat Islamic extremism to the KKK if we didn’t have any jurisdiction to stop the harm directed to our citizenry by the unwarranted persecution through hate?

This topic was never about giving more to one group than other group. It was never about favoritism. In fact I included in my post that entitlement was on the wrong end of a cohesive society. We need to remain a society of equals.

 

[Freethinker]

RE: How Canadians Live Pe

Most important things are democratic, rule of law based societies with a separation of church and state.

War seldom breaks out between societies that share the above characteristics.

Internal strife in the above societies are based on institutionalized inequities. Unfair distribution of resources. (USA (more inequites, more violence) vs Sweden (less inequeties, less violence) ).

 

[elevennevele]

RE: How Canadians Live Pe

I will also be fair in saying that peace is additionally attained through a quality in the standard of living for the citizens. Economic stability contributes to peace. This is one aspect that leads to failure when trying to impose democracies in places like Iraq or Afghanistan.

People who are without security, and a quality of life can not appreciate democracy in the same sense. Not when their own personal survival, and how that personal survival can be maintained, becomes first and foremost.

As for Canada however, I introduced this topic on how our ‘peace’ is more or less ‘maintained’. We are past the point of invention. We are now at the point of ‘keeping’ or ‘losing’.

 

[Jay]

Laws that prohibit hatred are a good thing in our country. How could we combat Islamic extremism to the KKK if we didn’t have any jurisdiction to stop the harm directed to our citizenry by the unwarranted persecution through hate?

If laws that prohibit hatred are a good thing I propose we take it one step further and have "Happy Laws"...something like..


1.) It is the lawful duty for all Canadians to be happy, without complaint and joyous at every moment in their lives.

2.) If a person is found not being happy a warning shall be given, if found in contempt of that warning, a maximum of 1 year sentence shall be served or a $1000.00 fine shall be levied, and repeated until said individual cheers up!


Hate laws are simply a tool to step on freedom of speech and promote a political agenda through the courts. I'm not concerned that the KKK has things to say or the fundamentalist Islamofascist has rhetoric that offends other members of society. I have a problem when they actually commit crimes and break real laws.

That doesn’t mean that said rhetoric doesn’t warrant the eye of the intelligence community, it just means there is little we can do to stop people from saying things they believe.

Deporting people because they don't believe in certain points of history, because that point of view offends people, is wrong and as far as I'm concerned illegal.

 

[BitWhys]

It does apply. That was my point. There will always be war because militaries are essential to the economy. You can displace innocents in a war torn nation, or you can displace hundreds of thousands of soldiers. War is essential to the viability of the army and the nation-state.

For the longest time, Canada has been engaged in dismantling its military. Only recently, and under the Conservative government, is the Canadian military getting renewed attention and embarking on a path of growth. Arguably due to growing discontent among the Canadian population.

war = affluence = CPC

nice platform

maybe next time he'll have the nerve to run on it.

 

[elevennevele]

If laws that prohibit hatred are a good thing I propose we take it one step further and have "Happy Laws"...something like..


1.) It is the lawful duty for all Canadians to be happy, without complaint and joyous at every moment in their lives.

2.) If a person is found not being happy a warning shall be given, if found in contempt of that warning, a maximum of 1 year sentence shall be served or a $1000.00 fine shall be levied, and repeated until said individual cheers up!


Hate laws are simply a tool to step on freedom of speech and promote a political agenda through the courts. I'm not concerned that the KKK has things to say or the fundamentalist Islamofascist has rhetoric that offends other members of society. I have a problem when they actually commit crimes and break real laws.

The happy law idea is an absurd comparison. Being happy doesn’t hurt anyone.

Hatred, expousing hate can damage a community, can afflict the well-being of children, can be a form of persecution, alienation, and thus very counter productive to the social health of a society which is an obligation for the government to maintain.

There is a difference between discussion, criticism, holding an opinion, and harming someone with hatred. Hatred however becomes a legal issue when it alternatively turns into an issue of harassment and which then becomes an issue of maintaining law in our society.

Is someone calls someone something derogatory based on race, it’s harassment. It conflicts with that other person’s ability to live freely and peacefully in what is their community. That is why we have hate laws.

 

[Jay]

Being happy doesn’t hurt anyone.

That isn't what I said....I said being unhappy hurts people IE hate IE we need a law that says we have to be happy. it is just as absurd as hate laws.

Hatred, expousing hate can damage a community, can afflict the well-being of children, can be a form of persecution, alienation, and thus very counter productive to the social health of a society which is an obligation for the government to maintain.

Stalin would be proud of you.


It truly saddens me to see a whole generation of people growing up not believing in free speech and freedom of expression.

I do believe we should change the National anthem to something more appropriate; at least remove the “True north strong and free” bit, as it isn’t true anymore.

 

[elevennevele]

That isn't what I said....I said being unhappy hurts people IE hate IE we need a law that says we have to be happy. it is just as absurd as hate laws.

Stalin would be proud of you.

It truly saddens me to see a whole generation of people growing up not believing in free speech and freedom of expression.

I do believe we should change the National anthem to something more appropriate; at least remove the “True north strong and free” bit, as it isn’t true anymore.

Being unhappy doesn’t hurt anyone either except for oneself for being unhappy. Neither does unhappiness mean one hates another person. The example is absurd.

This isn’t about Communism or about Stalin, and you’re misinterpreting Communism if you are making the comparison. There is nothing here to do with a distribution of weath, possessions, or collective labour. Having a government in itself is putting in place a social institution. The simplest things such as where roads are built can either help the social welfare of a community or hinder it. There is nothing Communist/Stalinist about issues of human rights and laws to protect them for a functioning society.

I have no problem with freedom of speech. This is about when you attack someone based on culture or religion, it’s Persecution. A person in our society has the right to be free of persecution based on their race or religion. Literature which is simply condemning of a person due to their race or religion is a form of persecution. We can however criticize ‘actions’ a religious group or cultural group might take, but those ‘actions’ will again be judged by the ‘actions’ and not through a collective condemnation of the religion or the culture.

There are extremists in all different religions. There are people who hate or expouse violence in all sorts of cultures/ethnicity. Extremism is not owned by a particular ethnic group or religion.

We are seeing some horrific violence supported by western powers in the world these days. When the authority in the US sanctioned the use of certain interrogation methods that was tantamount to torture, allowed for secret prisons, and held people without any rights of legal defense or validation of detainment, there is no way to see the actions as anything but extremism. Strangely it is far from our minds however to espouse racist views on the west for actions of extremism when we so easily do so to a particular ethnic group.

Forgive me for taking it to a wider arena. This is more about a topic of maintaining the peace in our society between Canadians and I hope we can keep it more as such.

 

[elevennevele]

I do believe we should change the National anthem to something more appropriate; at least remove the “True north strong and free” bit, as it isn’t true anymore.

No we shouldn’t change National Anthem to something which removes the line “True north strong and free”.

Rather we should act as a society to strengthen the meaning of that line.

Your freedom of speech is fine as long as someone else isn't persecuted because of it for their race or religion.

 

[Jay]

See I think that your views (and that of the supporters) on hate speech are extremist and divisive and illegal to act upon.

But oh well, I sure don't agree with your "diversity saved us all" line of thinking and when you say "tolerance" you really mean intolerance and when you say dialogue you really mean not talking about certain opinions and when you say openmindness you really mean close-mindedness and when you say equality you really mean some people are more equal then others (take anti-Americanism and anti-British and Israel speech as your example) and when you say by not being prejudiced, and ultimately by peaceful conduct you really mean only some people can be prejudiced (race and sex quotas) and some people don't have peaceful conduct and your not allowed to defend yourself from them.

It's like double speak to me.

There is nothing here to do with a distribution of weath, possessions, or collective labour.

Communism wasn't just about that either was it?

Your freedom of speech is fine as long as someone else isn't persecuted because of it for their race or religion.

Another person who says they believe in free speech while telling me all about how they don't believe in it, insisting that they do. It's crazy.

Sticks and stones...

And why stop at race and religion?

 

[elevennevele]

But oh well, I sure don't agree with your "diversity saved us all" line of thinking and when you say "tolerance" you really mean intolerance and when you say dialogue you really mean not talking about certain opinions and when you say openmindness you really mean close-mindedness and when you say equality you really mean some people are more equal then others (take anti-Americanism and anti-British and Israel speech as your example) and when you say by not being prejudiced, and ultimately by peaceful conduct you really mean only some people can be prejudiced (race and sex quotas) and some people don't have peaceful conduct and your not allowed to defend yourself from them.

No, I meant exactly what I said with the words I used to say them. You can critique my message, but you can’t rearrange the words or the context to suit you. I am open to ‘fair criticism’ based on what I wrote, not a reinterpretation of my contribution.

Communism wasn't just about that either was it?

Neither was this forum ever here to debate communism. You are going very off topic unless you wish to make it somewhat on topic and propose that communism is a solution to peace in our society, or that communism is a problem to peace in our society — to it isn't even a real issue.

We are not a communist society. We are a democracy that shares in both the benefits of capitalism and social framework. We are a society that tries to adopt the best approaches from all examples of how people can live together in the best possible circumstance and we are hopefully a society that is evolving to improve on that rather than to lose what we already have attained.

I would say hatred is counter productive to a healthy society. As far as ‘freedom’ is concerned, one does not create freedom through a free expression of hate. You end up harming another by an unwarranted persecution of one’s culture or religion or identity.

Such actions hamper a person to live freely in their community, and as such, is not conducive to the creation of freedom.

Hate does not create freedom. Hate however can be a product of a loss of freedom.

 

[Jay]

Hate does not create freedom. Hate however can be a product of a loss of freedom.

I'll leave it at this, cause your right. You hate the fact people might say something you don't like and it now lands people in jail....you know it and so do I.

Tolerance you say...I say it's intolerance.

 

[FiveParadox]

Brock[/i]]See I think that your views (and that of the supporters) on hate speech are extremist and divisive and illegal to act upon.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on several occasions that the hate propaganda laws presently in place are not unconstitutional. I would argue that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by virtue of Section 1, grants the Government of Canada the right to prescribe lawful restrictions on the freedom of speech to preserve peace, order and good government.

 

[elevennevele]

I'll leave it at this, cause your right. You hate the fact people might say something you don't like and it now lands people in jail....you know it and so do I.

Tolerance you say...I say it's intolerance.

There are no legal issues with people saying ‘something I don’t like’. As is the case of having to bother with poor arguments. I say, express yourself and good luck for having put yourself out there.

I only have a problem with actions, whether by physical expression, or vocal/written expression that causes harm through hatred against another Canadian. It requires nothing to be directed towards me personally. It’s simply defending any Canadians in their right to live ‘freely’ in our society without persecution for who they simply ‘are’ based on culture, religion, or identity.

On another note, tolerance and intolerance become only words in the value that we use them.

I am “tolerant” of the use of torture.
I am “intolerant” of the use of torture.
I am “tolerant” of a ban on torture.
I am “intolerant” of a ban on torture.

The words start meaning very different things depending on how one wishes to cast them.