Muslims face negative perception in Canada, study suggests

[Machjo]

My principles dictate, a greater evil must not be condoned.

But if you and Cannuck think mass murder, rape and flagrant injustice should be ignored by Canada. Simply because of an inequitable clause in the Charter.

The two of you have greater issues than OCD and myopic thinking.

I'm all for trying to help other countries improve their human rights situation. However, how effective do you think Canadian diplomats will be in that regard when they don't even have the competence to change our own constitution within the context of a culture they're much more familiar with? It's just common sense. Looking at it that way, changing the human rights situation in our constitution would serve as a useful training ground for the kind of obstacles they may face when trying to change that of other jurisdictions. After all, you don't send a soldier to battle before ensuring he's properly trained first and that he knows what he's doing and has experience in less difficult situations, right?

Again with your hard-on for the separate school system and the Queen's religion?

And I'm sure your counterpart in iran would say the same about our hard on for equality of religion there too.

Again with your hard-on for the separate school system and the Queen's religion?

So how can you defend the Canadian constitution and in the same breath oppose human rights violations abroad. Sure the situation is worse there than here, but the same attitude taht defends our constitution is the same one that defends theirs.

 

[CDNBear]

Looking at it that way, changing the human rights situation in our constitution would serve as a useful training ground for the kind of obstacles they may face when trying to change that of other jurisdictions.

You can look at it anyway you want.

If your principles find greater offence in monetary inequality based on religion, than mass murder, rape and so on.

You have greater issues than any politician that lacks the wherewithal to change the Charter.

You can try and convince me you aren't dismissing greater injustices, with your obsession, but you are.

Maybe if you and Cannuck, didn't have principles with the consistency of jello, you'd understand the monumental difference.

 

[Machjo]

You can look at it anyway you want.

If your principles find greater offence in monetary inequality based on religion, than mass murder, rape and so on.

You have greater issues than any politician that lacks the wherewithal to change the Charter.

You can try and convince me you aren't dismissing greater injustices, with your obsession, but you are.

Maybe if you and Cannuck, didn't have principles with the consistency of jello, you'd understand the monumental difference.

So you trust in the competence of a politician who can't even improve our constitution to then lecture other countries on theirs within a totally different cultural and legal environment?

I just don't believe in the "do as I say not as I do" approach to diplomacy.

Besides, another way to look at it is that by ironing out human rights violations from our constitution, this would end this debate thus ensuring a more assertive policy abroad.
So how about that: let's change our constitution ASAp so that we can then put that out of the way to then deal with more difficult problems abroad. Why woudl you oppose that?

 

[captain morgan]

I'm all for trying to help other countries improve their human rights situation. However, how effective do you think Canadian diplomats will be in that regard when they don't even have the competence to change our own constitution within the context of a culture they're much more familiar with? It's just common sense. Looking at it that way, changing the human rights situation in our constitution would serve as a useful training ground for the kind of obstacles they may face when trying to change that of other jurisdictions. After all, you don't send a soldier to battle before ensuring he's properly trained first and that he knows what he's doing and has experience in less difficult situations, right?

You pine for a perfect Canadian society, and in the meantime, we are supposed to turn a blind eye to heinous disregard for life elsewhere... How humanitarian of you.

In terms of the solution that you propose, I can't see it having any kind of tangible impact in any way shape or form... Fact is, and it has been demonstrated to you over and over again, no one is preventing any interest group from opening their own school where they would be able to get the same student funding as the public or separate schools... You specifically choose to apply a bigoted view to selective groups - nothing more.

Lastly who cares about the Queen's religion and what stipulations are placed on her, it's not like she called you up and begged that you fix things on her behalf... If she doesn't like it, she can abdicate.

And I'm sure your counterpart in iran would say the same about our hard on for equality of religion there too.

So how can you defend the Canadian constitution and in the same breath oppose human rights violations abroad. Sure the situation is worse there than here, but the same attitude that defends our constitution is the same one that defends theirs.

My counterpart?.. Does that mean that Pol Pot is your bosom buddy?

... As far as the Canadian Constitution is concerned, do you really believe that if something is written in it then it magically transforms society and we are left with utopia?

Really man, your rants are nothing more than a representation of your bigotry against the Catholic Church and nothing more.

 

[CDNBear]

So you trust in the competence of a politician who can't even improve our constitution to then lecture other countries on theirs within a totally different cultural and legal environment?

I just don't believe in the "do as I say not as I do" approach to diplomacy.

That's what you want to make the discussion about.

I followed this string of posts, back to it's beginning. It started with the treatment of Kurds. Not cultural/religious differences.

Why woudl you oppose that?

I don't.

I appose the idiocy that you espouse, the ridiculous comparisons you make, and the moving of goalposts.

 

[Goober]

Using the same argument, china's refusal to accept Taiwan's formal cecession (Officially Taiwan still acknowledges itself to be a part of China, but just refuses to be ruled by the Communist Party, essentially a kind of two states within one solution) is a way to appease the general mainland population. Same argument for Tibet and Xinjiang. Most chinese would not tolerate their government giving up Tibet or Xinjiang. So do you defend that in the name of "pragmatism"?

Again, same argument.



As long as we continue to defend that constitution, YES.

After all, if we don't know how to improve our own Constitution, who are we to pretend to know how to improve that of other countries? Let's think of changing our constitution as a training ground for how to approach other countries' human rights issues. If we fail to improve our own, that will be proof positive we know not what we are talking about. If we succeed, then we could take what we learn from the experience to other countries.



But the right to Catholic education specifically in Upper Canada (now Ontario) is in the Constitution Act, which cannot be changed by any one province. It requires approval of Parliament and at least half of the provinces representing altogether at least 50% of the population. So the federal government has a role to play here too.

Wrong - The rest of the Provinces cannot remove Ontario's right - The SCOC would overturn that as an intrusion by the Fed and other Provs into Ontario's right. Something you overlooked. That is why I stated it is up to the Province. And no how, no way will the feds try to interfere in a Prov and guaranteed right under the Const.

 

[Machjo]

You pine for a perfect Canadian society, and in the meantime, we are supposed to turn a blind eye to heinous disregard for life elsewhere... How humanitarian of you.

No. I just want to ensure our diplomats have the proven competence to deal with such abuses elsewhere. but honestly, if they can't deal with moderate human rights abuses here, how in the world are they going to have the competence to deal with greater challenges abroad. What yuo're proposing is to send a bunch of untrained recruits to fight a war without any prior training.

In terms of the solution that you propose, I can't see it having any kind of tangible impact in any way shape or form... Fact is, and it has been demonstrated to you over and over again, no one is preventing any interest group from opening their own school where they would be able to get the same student funding as the public or separate schools... You specifically choose to apply a bigoted view to selective groups - nothing more.

IWrong. It's well doocumentd that Catholics get funding others are not entitled to. If you're a Jewish father in Ontario, you choose between Catholic and secular. if you want to send your child to a private jewish school, you still have to pay taxes to one of the others and then pay out of pocket for the Jewish school which does not get the same funding. Fact.

Lastly who cares about the Queen's religion and what stipulations are placed on her, it's not like she called you up and begged that you fix things on her behalf... If she doesn't like it, she can abdicate.

And if an Iranian Jew wants more opportunities, he can always convert to Islam or satisfy himself with a private sector job only, right? This is essentially what you're defending.

It's the principle that even the Queen ought to be guaranteed her freedom of religion and be free to marry a catholic if she wants to. for crying out loud, with the Catholic Faith being one of Canada's major faiths, one would think the monarch can marry a catholic without abdicating. After all, if the Constitution has no rule saying the monarch can't marry a Muslim, then why a Catholic specifically. Do you defend equality for all or don't you? And if you don't in Canada, then why do you care about it abroad?




My counterpart?.. Does that mean that Pol Pot is your bosom buddy?

... As far as the Canadian Constitution is concerned, do you really believe that if something is written in it then it magically transforms society and we are left with utopia?

Really man, your rants are nothing more than a representation of your bigotry against the Catholic Church and nothing more.

Wrong - The rest of the Provinces cannot remove Ontario's right - The SCOC would overturn that as an intrusion by the Fed and other Provs into Ontario's right. Something you overlooked. That is why I stated it is up to the Province. And no how, no way will the feds try to interfere in a Prov and guaranteed right under the Const.

the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms does apply to neither the BNA Act nor the the rules applying to the Queen, such as those in the English Bill of Rights, and the separate school system is in the BNA Act, which stands above the Charter.

 

[CDNBear]

Wrong - The rest of the Provinces cannot remove Ontario's right - The SCOC would overturn that as an intrusion by the Fed and other Provs into Ontario's right. Something you overlooked. That is why I stated it is up to the Province. And no how, no way will the feds try to interfere in a Prov and guaranteed right under the Const.

The conversation is moot anyways Goob's.

The Ontario Education act, supersedes Ontario's policy on school funding. If you set up a school, and receive certification. The province will fund each student, at the same rate and standard as every other student in Ontario.

It's the law. As has been pointed out to Mach, several times. Complete with the law itself.

 

[Machjo]

That's what you want to make the discussion about.

I followed this string of posts, back to it's beginning. It started with the treatment of Kurds. Not cultural/religious differences.

I don't.

I appose the idiocy that you espouse, the ridiculous comparisons you make, and the moving of goalposts.

Ok, so if we clean up human rights abuses from the Constitution, it would put idiots like myself on side with you in defending human rights abroad. So would it not therefore make sense to update the constitution so as to unite idiots like myself who do support a more just constitution and the rest in a common cause?

 

[CDNBear]

... the BNA Act, which stands above the Charter.

What exactly do you mean by that?

Ok, so if we clean up human rights abuses from the Constitution, it would put idiots like myself on side with you in defending human rights abroad. So would it not therefore make sense to update the constitution so as to unite idiots like myself who do support a more just constitution and the rest in a common cause?

You don't support a more just Charter. You have an issue with the RCC. Just like Cannuck doesn't support equality, he has an issue with Natives.

 

[captain morgan]

What exactly do you mean by that?

It means that he has no argument to support his bigotry, therefore, you go back hundreds of years, find an obscure document that no longer applies and apply a skewed interpretation to support the bigotry.

 

[CDNBear]

It means that he has no argument to support his bigotry, therefore, you go back hundreds of years, find an obscure document that no longer applies and apply a skewed interpretation to support the bigotry.

It looks more like obsession, than bigotry. He makes valid points. His ridiculous comparisons, and jello like principles, aside. They just happen to be moot.

 

[Machjo]

What exactly do you mean by that?

You don't support a more just Charter. You have an issue with the RCC. Just like Cannuck doesn't support equality, he has an issue with Natives.

You think you can read minds now? If the BNA Act gave Muslims special rights, or Jews, or whoever else, I'd have said the same thing. Go back to mind-reading school.

 

[captain morgan]

It looks more like obsession, than bigotry. He makes valid points. His ridiculous comparisons, and jello like principles, aside. They just happen to be moot.

I too see the (general) points, but like yourself, in the face of the extreme comparisons and the fact that the overall issue is already addressed via the existing system, I can't interpret the posts as anything but a hard-on for the RCC and Queen.

Factor in the reality that there are far more important 'inequalities' that would need to be addressed prior to this non-issue, the diatribe is akin to stepping over a $20 bill to pick up a nickle

 

[Machjo]

It means that he has no argument to support his bigotry, therefore, you go back hundreds of years, find an obscure document that no longer applies and apply a skewed interpretation to support the bigotry.

So equality is now bigotry? Check.

 

[CDNBear]

You think you can read minds now?

Nope. My opinion is based on several interactions with you, on this subject, and supported by fact.

If the BNA Act gave Muslims special rights, or Jews, or whoever else, I'd have said the same thing.

I don't doubt that. Which is why I'm not comfortable calling you a bigot.

Can you answer my question now? The one you quoted.

I too see the (general) points, but like yourself, in the face of the extreme comparisons and the fact that the overall issue is already addressed via the existing system, I can't interpret the posts as anything but a hard-on for the RCC and Queen.

Factor in the reality that there are far more important 'inequalities' that would need to be addressed prior to this non-issue, the diatribe is akin to stepping over a $20 bill to pick up a nickle

I can see your point, but I believe he would have the same issue with any group.

It's just the fact that it's a reoccurring issue, and something he injects into all manner of conversations, that makes me think it's just an obsession, not an outright bigotry.

 

[captain morgan]

I can see your point, but I believe he would have the same issue with any group.

It's just the fact that it's a reoccurring issue, and something he injects into all manner of conversations, that makes me think it's just an obsession, not an outright bigotry.

Good perspective, I see your point and have to agree.

@Machjo: Apologies for invoking the term bigot.. It was, and is, uncalled for.

 

[Goober]

Ok, so if we clean up human rights abuses from the Constitution, it would put idiots like myself on side with you in defending human rights abroad. So would it not therefore make sense to update the constitution so as to unite idiots like myself who do support a more just constitution and the rest in a common cause?

No one stated you are an idiot - You are hung up on this school thing - Next - waiting to criticize another country because of some minor problems with our own Human Rights is not logical.

 

[Cannuck]

No one stated you are an idiot - You are hung up on this school thing - Next - waiting to criticize another country because of some minor problems with our own Human Rights is not logical.

I guess that is where we can agree to disagree. Some of us don't believe that laws that treat some Canadians differently than other Canadians is a "minor problem". We believe that equality should be a founding principle and not something of convenience. Equality should be a cornerstone of our system and it should be a measuring stick for everything we do politically.

 

[Goober]

I guess that is where we can agree to disagree. Some of us don't believe that laws that treat some Canadians differently than other Canadians is a "minor problem". We believe that equality should be a founding principle and not something of convenience. Equality should be a cornerstone of our system and it should be a measuring stick for everything we do politically.

There will always be inequality- loss of rights - Look to the SCOC for their ruling on these very things - Loss of rights.