So would't eliminating all laws pertaining to race, language and sex solve that problem?
Does Canada need a US-style Bill of Rights?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
So would't eliminating all laws pertaining to race, language and sex solve that problem?
Claims and Treaties: Aboriginal Canada Portal
I'm sure it varies depending on the FN in question as there were a number of them.
Beyond honouring whatever rights they are entitled to as per treaties we'd entered into in good faith, then yes I agree we should perhaps simply wipe such laws off of the map.
and yet, you have stated that we should throw out the agreements made to bring individual provinces into confederation. Why is that? Reverse discrimination? Are FN's more deserving?
Not at all. We'd also agreed that the constitution can be changed according to certain rules. So I'm proposing that we change the constitution by in fact getting the necessary majority votes we need as per the agreed-upon means of changing the constitution. That too is part of the agreement, right.
Now of course if most of the people would prefer to defend this injustice, then I suppose you're right. We've signed onto it and we now have to live with the rag we call a constitution. The choice is ours collectively. We can either create a new constitution all can be proud of, or keep the current rag and try to hide it in shame.
ROFLMFAO, what a fu cking hypocrite you are. Change it the way "I" want or it is a piece of sh it. Democracy is everything unless they vote for that which I oppose. You are hilarious.
You you're for constitutionally defined special privileges for certain religious groups? Seriously now!
So would you support extending these privileges to all religious groups?
And as for democracy, we need to ensure it doesn't degenerate into mob rule Remember Hilter was elected to power. Though what we see in Ontario today is not nearly as bad, the idea of wielding democracy as a weapon to ensure special constitutional privileges for a particular religious group is basically the same concept, albeit a more moderate form of it.
Where not talking here about tossing the agreement, but working within the confines of the agreement. Our constitution, the agreement, also includes an agreement that we can change the constitution as per certain rules. Are you now saying that you're prepared to honour one part of the agreement (special privilees for Catholics for example) but not another part (i.e. the mechanisms for changing the constitution)? Talk about picking and choosing. If you care so much about agreements, then why not accept the entire agreement and not just the part you agree with?
As for special privileges for Catholics in the Constitution, I agree that as long as we don'g get the agreed-upon majority in Parliament an sufficient provinces, then it ought to stick. But should we get the necessary majority, then you should honour your side of the agreement too (i.e. that the constitution can be changed with the necessary supramajority). If you did not like that part of the constitution, then why did you ever sign onto it?
I'm prepared to honour my side of the bargain and continue to accept this unjust privilege granted to a special interest group on condition that you're prepared to honour your side of it that we can change it with the necessary supramajority.
What I am hoping for here is to point out this injustice so that some day we could change this injustice as per the necessary supramajority as per the agreement.
I've never said I wouldn't honor democratic change. YOU, on the other hand, have made it perfectly clear what you think of changes not being made to your satisfaction.
Considering what is required to make Constitutional changes, I'm not concerned about it in the least.
Considering what is required to make Constitutional changes, I'm not concerned about it in the least.
The constitution also guarantees my freedom of belief and I happen to believe that special provisions for certain religious groups is unjust. But yes you are right that we're not likely to see special interest groups relinquishing special privileges for themselves very easily. That still doesn't change the fact that I have every right to express my indignation against it.
Yup it does, and the fact that Catholic and Protestant school systems are allowed to be publically funded in some jurisdictions does not take that right away from you, yet what you want to do IS take away rights that certain people have had since confederation.
Let me reword this slightly based on a slightly different imaginary scenario:
"Yup it does, and the fact that the Muslim school system is allowed to be publically funded in some jurisdictions does not take that right away from you, yet what you want to do IS take away rights that certain people have had since confederation."
If that were the case, would you still feel the same way? Be honest now.
ROFLMFAO..... I have no problem with it. Just like I have no problem with supporting the privileges afforded FN's through negotiations. Some things need to be negotiated, and those agreements need to be honored. If not, then you have no honor and I, personally, have no desire to belong to a Country or organization that has no honor.
I fully agree that should we rescind our treaties with the FN, then we should also give them all their land back too. And likewise, should we break with the constitution, then each province is certainly free to just walk out on Canada. None of these would be good things.
That said, getting the necessary support to change the constitution would not be violating the agreement. On the contrary, it would be working within the agreed-upon arrangement.