67% of Canadians favour screening newcomers for 'anti-Canadian values
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
yep
And, there's canadian and there's everybody else
there's Italian and there's everybody else
there's german and there's everybody else
there's swedish and there's everybody else
there's norwegian and there's everybody else
for the valuists and antivaluists alike, for the shiny pony 'core values' drones, the whites and non-whites, stocks or n00bs, charter worshippers or free-thinkers.
one citizen, one vote.
the equality of men and women.
equal benefit of the law.
the protection of the most vulnerable among us.
something something politicians are stupid
but hey, if ya don't like basic sh!t like that, then no soup for you. go apply elsewhere.
more something something
one citizen, one vote.
the equality of men and women.
equal benefit of the law.
the protection of the most vulnerable among us.
something something politicians are stupid
but hey, if ya don't like basic sh!t like that, then no soup for you. go apply elsewhere.
more something something
Speaking of Canadian values.....
The federal government has issued notice that it will table legislation in the coming days to repeal a provision of the Criminal Code that bans Canadians from engaging in **** intercourse and creates a distinction between **** intercourse and other forms of sexual activity.
Section 159 of Canada’s Criminal Code reads: “Every person who engages in an act of **** intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.”
The provision provides an exception for heterosexual married couples and for any two people 18 years of age or older who both consent to engaging in **** sex. The age of consent for other sexual activity in Canada is 16 years — 18 years for sexual activity involving prostitution or pornography, or one that “occurs in a relationship of authority, trust or dependency,” such as with a teacher, coach or babysitter.
The government provided a heads-up in last Thursday’s notice paper about “an Act related to the repeal of Section 159 of the Criminal Code.” The Department of Justice issued a news release Monday afternoon saying Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould will make an announcement regarding Section 159 in the House of Commons at 10:10 a.m. Tuesday morning.
Canada’s LGBT community calls Section 159 discriminatory and unconstitutional, and has been urging the government for years to repeal the ban. A report published in June by Egale, a national LGBT charity, says the ban is still in effect in five provinces and the three territories.
Ontario’s Court of Appeal was the first to find Section 159 unconstitutional in the late 1990s, saying the law violated Section 15 of the Canadian Charter by discriminating on the basis of age. Appellate courts in Quebec, Alberta, B.C. and Nova Scotia, and at the federal level, followed suit.
The report states police have taken advantage of the law’s ambiguity and continue to use it to charge Canadian citizens.
“Between 2008 and 2014 in Ontario, 22 people were charged with **** intercourse under Section 159,” the report reads.
The report also says Canadian gay rights activists were “mortified” that the Harper government did not address Section 159 when it revisited the age of consent for sexual activity in 2008.
A former NDP member of Parliament did try to have the ban revoked more than five years ago. Joe Comartin introduced a private member’s bill in February 2011 that sought to repeal Section 159 but Bill C-628 never made it to the first round of debate.
http://ipolitics.ca/2016/11/14/liberals-to-repeal-****-sex-ban-in-criminal-code/
The federal government has issued notice that it will table legislation in the coming days to repeal a provision of the Criminal Code that bans Canadians from engaging in **** intercourse and creates a distinction between **** intercourse and other forms of sexual activity.
Section 159 of Canada’s Criminal Code reads: “Every person who engages in an act of **** intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.”
The provision provides an exception for heterosexual married couples and for any two people 18 years of age or older who both consent to engaging in **** sex. The age of consent for other sexual activity in Canada is 16 years — 18 years for sexual activity involving prostitution or pornography, or one that “occurs in a relationship of authority, trust or dependency,” such as with a teacher, coach or babysitter.
The government provided a heads-up in last Thursday’s notice paper about “an Act related to the repeal of Section 159 of the Criminal Code.” The Department of Justice issued a news release Monday afternoon saying Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould will make an announcement regarding Section 159 in the House of Commons at 10:10 a.m. Tuesday morning.
Canada’s LGBT community calls Section 159 discriminatory and unconstitutional, and has been urging the government for years to repeal the ban. A report published in June by Egale, a national LGBT charity, says the ban is still in effect in five provinces and the three territories.
Ontario’s Court of Appeal was the first to find Section 159 unconstitutional in the late 1990s, saying the law violated Section 15 of the Canadian Charter by discriminating on the basis of age. Appellate courts in Quebec, Alberta, B.C. and Nova Scotia, and at the federal level, followed suit.
The report states police have taken advantage of the law’s ambiguity and continue to use it to charge Canadian citizens.
“Between 2008 and 2014 in Ontario, 22 people were charged with **** intercourse under Section 159,” the report reads.
The report also says Canadian gay rights activists were “mortified” that the Harper government did not address Section 159 when it revisited the age of consent for sexual activity in 2008.
A former NDP member of Parliament did try to have the ban revoked more than five years ago. Joe Comartin introduced a private member’s bill in February 2011 that sought to repeal Section 159 but Bill C-628 never made it to the first round of debate.
http://ipolitics.ca/2016/11/14/liberals-to-repeal-****-sex-ban-in-criminal-code/
I am 100% for screening new people coming to live here, they need to understand and accept our Canadians values. Why? because I don't plan on changing my values for anybody while I'm living in my country. I've lived in a few different places in the world, and I made absolutely sure that I not only understood their values, but that I respected them. I am pro choice on abortion and marriage. I don't give a sh#t who anybody sleeps with, I accept that Canada has the highest Christian demographic, I choose not to belief in churches, but there's a place for all religion, I respect women, so don't like to see them under dark cloths, I did understand it in some places, but not here, Canadian women don't do that. I don't believe that JT has our best interest by tripling our population, and making us the minority, which will mean I'll be a minority for ever!! so will my children. I would rather see a solution for our Canadian families to have more kids versus taxing us to death and forcing both parents having to go out to work.
You will never be in a minority because the new immigrants will become Canadian citizens too.
By the way, increasing immigration could also encourage old stick Canadians to have more kids too. The growing population creates a growing economy and so more job stability. Without that, people won't have more kids.
What do we do about those like me who have only Canadian citizenship and fail the Canadian values (TM) test?
I know! Declare Vancouver Island a dependency, ship me there, give me local citizenship, and then strip me of my Canadian citizenship.
I know! Declare Vancouver Island a dependency, ship me there, give me local citizenship, and then strip me of my Canadian citizenship.
Last edited:
Toothpicks, maybe...................kids not so much.
Sorry, I meant old stock Canadians.
But wait, mentaloss is trying to tell us that Canadians overwhelmingly oppose the Trump election result. Yet it would appear that a majority of Canadians feel the same as Trump in at least this one area.
Citizenship does make you Canadian, but I've never met a Chinese who identified as Canadian first, they say I'm Chinese Canadian, or an Pakistanian who does not say I'm a Pakistani Canadian, etc... and this is absolutely normal and fair. Me, I'm simply Canadian, period. What I'm saying is that for example; someone from a Greek ethnic background; born in 'Canada or not', decides they are not happy with being a minority, they can move to Greece. Chinese wanting to become part of the majority, can move to China. They have an option, but for us, Canada is the place where the majority of Canadian live. Maybe we could ask for a piece of land next to Dharamshala in Kangra?