Scott Mayers

This is likely China targeting Canada for the arrest of Huawei's President FOR the U.S. extradition request. If they can read this, they should recognize that this would only defeat Canada's neutrality for that company letting the American's influence take precedence. Mind you, this could then be intentional to discredit the Chinese? And, if the Chinese OR Americans are involved, their use of Korean may be to purposely confuse who is responsible. .... ??? Any other similar political suggestion possibilities? Is there a way to trace them back ....or their proxies?

Thanks. Fixed.

Some argue that if you don't have a job, you require making it your job to look for a job. But then, if this is true, can we legislate you pay yourself at least a minimum wage for this or risk going to jail if you can't?

Since we digressed, I started up a new thread to respond to this called, "Are Cultural Laws against Free Speech?..." [Sorry for the title. I should have named it, "Are Cultural Laws for or against Free Speech", to not bias my own position by the title. I realized that too late.]

I've opened this thread to continue with a discussion that Zeitgeist and myself begun in "Statistics, comparisons, contradictions". Anyone else interested may join in if they'd like. ... [Zeitgeist]"I think you're creating a false dichotomy that religion is separate from culture." No. "Religion" is a subclass of "Culture" because it is an artificial and arbitrary construct. I propose separating Culture from political lawmaking which includes any particular religious, recreational, or entertainment concepts. And my point is that our "Multicultural (TM)" government is hiding their special interest in the preservation of particular religious beliefs by broadening their intended interest in making laws respecting religion under the guise of 'culture'. And moreover, they add the "Multi-" to make it appear universal when it is not universally inclusive. [Zeitgeist]"You can't separate atheism or humanism from culture either." Yes you can. It is NOT an artificial and arbitrary construct except by those who are interpreting that the default of our Nature at birth as knowing some particular God and its particular story as though it were genetic. The fact that I may call myself "atheist" is only by the imposed artificial force by past governments to "theism". ALL people have 'culture' as defined as those particular artificial and arbitrary things each of us find entertaining, recreational, and inspiring personally. One without religion or human interest also can have 'culture'....such as a dog or cat. [Zeitgeist]"Canada was formed by two major cultural groups. The country is redolent with the traditions of both nations. To pretend that Canada would be the same country if it was settled by Indonesian islanders or atheist Maoist Chinese revolutionaries is wrong." Canada was accidentally formed by the trivially populated and non-united settlers along the St Lawrence seaway external to the 13 colonies that stood up against its British Imperialist rulers. We were not a 'country' but a "Dominion of Britain" at that time. The population rose by those Loyalist to a King and its decreed religion [Anglican] along with the Loyalist of pre-Revolutionary world of France, who initiated and supported the concepts of American Republican-style governments. Their main ideal was to isolate separate cultural biases based upon the various religious and non-religious people alike from government top-down imposition of beliefs. You also missed that the territory of Canada was also pre-inhabited of many other cultures aboriginal to the land in the same respect of their own religions where they had them. And yes, our world would still be similar with exception to culturally defined aspects had civilization and technology were the same as it is now. Culture doesn't define civilization....civilization merely coincides with culture regardless. That's why the aboriginals would have equally had 'culture' prior to settled lifestyles. Their cultures did not PREVENT them from advancing. They were just not old enough be reach that similar maturity of large-scale organization and settlement. Culture doesn't go away just because a country doesn't dictate it. Communist-idealism that crushes one's capacity to EXPRESS themselves is also not comparable to the concept of the FREE-EXPRESSION restriction of governments that make laws regarding particular religious laws. Laws equally come from children playing pretend. Do you credit the act of pretending to be what grants legitimacy to some rules that may evolve from them that become more inclusive of other kids? Culture is just an extension of playing games as children. Or....for another example, while there is certain justifiable common links to many independent civilizations to have invented the symbols "1" and "0" for one and zero, the symbols are still arbitrary constructs because we could choose any symbols for these concepts. But the meaning of their symbol's origins, though may be useful, are NOT relevant to the reason mathematics today is valuable. We also don't require each person to define their own symbols for the concepts of one and zero to be functional as a cooperative society....and in fact this would be MORE counter-cooperative. Imagine if each kid from grade 1 to 12 were allowed to pick their own symbols independently and require the teachers and all other kids to know each others' distinct symbols. Can you not see that the symbols, like culture, are arbitrary and artificially constructed and only MEAN something collectively when they are shared in general terms but expressed freely in one's own specific use of those general terms? That is, we agree to use this alphabet to communicate IN GENERAL, but we (or some of us at least) don't think we require everyone to communicate precisely with a limited SPECIFIC style of expression. Culturalism, multi- or mono- are means of limiting freedom of expression because it dictates etiquette and style, particular concepts of preferences, versus the general concepts of grammar rules we use of some arbitrary but universally chosen language. I'm not against culture but just the opposite. I just know that with our system that commands a right to constitute culture as its means of governing with priority over logic, it is no different than expecting our emotions to dictate how we should add numbers together. A 'government' is only a management system that the people collectively utilize to organize itself in the essentials. Culture is a personal concept that belongs to the individual.

I already agree with this too though. The problems associated with the Aboriginals is isolation and poverty. This is only a "First Nations" issue though precisely because we enable a right FOR the Catholic Church's protection via Multiculturalism as an entrenched law. If any specific church is favoured in law, this means we are a theocratic government by law. The only reason Multiculturalism is instituted at all is to preserve consistency with the biases our constitution has for desiring to favour the PARTICULAR powers of that church and the French language in legal isolation. The concept of "Multiculturalism" as defined through the constitution is a smoke screen that PERMANENTLY CONSERVES a right of the traditional religious to utilize different laws for different people in order to have their cake and eat it too. They get the benefits SPECIFICALLY but drop the losses GENERALLY to the population as a whole. The Reserve system itself treats the Aboriginals as animals in light of the beliefs of those original Canadian governments. While I agree that the Natives should have been assimilated, the error of the way this assimilation was done was by attempting to alter their culture to the Christian arrogant belief that their ideals uniquely related to modern civilization. This is not the case because the religion is coincidental. Any civilization if repeated FROM any different religious background will also think their particular religion is what makes the civilization 'civil'. The truth is that civilization evolves IN SPITE of whatever artistic beliefs people hold. So no, ...we do not OWE anything to the nature of our country's religious roots but to a secular idea that goes against the religious mindset. The crimes against the Natives were about the religious assimilation but is being purposely being treated as though it was about civil assimilation. They are separate factors but are being blurred to hide the actual causation of the abuses. The powers of the government to grant particular churches, let alone ANY churches in general to be responsible for assimilation IS the problem. If we had laws that denied the government to make laws about religion, you'd have to hold accountable any of those churches that the government permitted to assimilate them by using religion as a means to do this. Civilization is NOT a 'culture' but an inevitable evolution of any animal that organizes itself intellectually to create a 'government' at all. The con is to treat this 'government' as though it is owed specifically to some supernatural being and to those who believe in it. This is dangerous because when it is empowered to those ruling, it enables them to excuse ANY potential behavior as something INSPIRED by their invisible being's commands and not something negotiated by the secular population.

I'm FOR culture and share much of your own stance. But I think that all cultures belong to each of us, though, not 'owned' by specific people proprietorially. I often interpret most of the original scriptures as secular literature collective of the past's science, politics, and history that have devolved to become religiously interpreted after its origins are lost. This is valuable to understand and connect our history universally. So I'm not rejecting culture but don't find it appropriate for any government to be allowed to use religion or culture within laws. Take the Catholic Separate School system, for instance, that 'vouchers' taxpayers to opt out of the regular secular school system. Or with respect to crimes of the church for the abuses supposedly imposed upon all Natives, these are due specifically to the the Christian churches but are now protected from prosecution and passed on to the population as though 'we' all own those crimes. Government itself IS our shared communal religion. It doesn't require formal traditional religions nor cultures of the past imposed upon our world now to function. Religion and culture laws only KEEP the world in perpetual smoke screens that hide the real problems that prevent them from being repaired.

[Thank you for your response. I like your style of writing and believe you are intellectually fair and likely meaningful non-biased.] I'm being very specific about what I mean when I use the word, "law" and "lawmaking" and "particular culture", etc. That is, I'm against the government being permitted powers to make laws for or against any PARTICULAR religion, culture, personal preferences regarding gender, etc. These concepts collectively are summarized as "art". They are ARBITRARY behaviors that belong to individuals, and when LAWS are made for or against SPECIFIC forms of ART, this power by governments are against FREEDOM OF SPEECH for some subset of the population that government is representing. The bias of power favors GROUPS of which those most powerful in money or popularity can rule OUT those individuals who desire different forms of ART. Therefore, our "Multicultural" label is itself misleading because it does NOT favor ALL individual 'cultures' (their ART) and biases select cultures those IN POWER simply don't like. The rhetoric and misuse of things like statistics among a whole set of other manipulative behaviors are also enhanced and escalated when governments have power to affect specific cultures and who, as people themselves, have the non-democratic power to IMPOSE their own religious/cultural beliefs directly through those laws. Note how the "Multi-" in "Multiculturalism" demonstrates a kind of statistic abuse: it purposely blurs the meaning of the quantity of cultures it supports. It is not true that ALL cultures are supported and yet not lying in that the quantity that they do support is at least more than one. It's fuzzy and places the greater burden on individuals who lack conforming to those specific favored cultures set in law to defend their own expressions against those laws. You can be deemed "racist", or "sexist" or a "hater" by the LAWS created regarding culture because those in power making them get to dictate the VIRTUE as well as VICE of those who speak against them.

[NOTE BEFORE READING: This post seems to digress away from Altai's thread here. I did not intend this but want to give notice to any potential reader and Alai personally. I link it back to the issue of statistical problems at the end but believe that this is all still relevant. Should the administrators feel this is potentially "hi-jacking", I ask that this at least be preserved in a distinct thread with a link for the value of this if it should be asked for removal in respect to Altai. I will save a copy just in case. Thank you.] I'm for that separation of church and state, something that most don't realize is NOT in our own Canadian Constitution. I also do not support laws that ban religion in the same way as one's right to artistic EXPRESSION. The reason for the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution's mention about freedom of speech would not warrant mentioning also that the country should make no laws regarding religion if this wasn't logically implying that religion itself is an ARTISTIC EXPRESSION. In other words, I agree that we cannot make laws that ban religion, culture, or language, etc, from the people but that regarding LAW-MAKING, specifically, we can not allow governments to force PARTICULAR kinds of interpretation of culture, religion, ....or 'art' (as a more generic term for it all)...by making laws to conserve, preserve, nor especially, constitutionalize what is intrinsically subjective interpretations about what is 'good' EXPRESSION versus the 'bad'. As such, even the U.S. today has already broken their own Constitutional amendment many times over since its incarnation. It has been (and still is) being interpreted BY RELIGIOUS people in power (by all parties) that the law only condemns making laws against religions in particular. For the left, they believe it is alright to have "hate-laws", for instance, exceptions to the freedom of expression. Also, they promote a right to make laws that act to balance out population clusters based upon cultural, religious, and even artistic, basis. For the right, they believe that if the majority HAVE a particular representation of particular religions, the ideals FROM or THROUGH their churches are justly right to make laws from. BOTH extremes (including all others in between), have the larger inclusive agreement that at least RELIGION, itself, has some just foundation to the moral foundations of their country's origins. So, for instance, while they may not overtly clarify it, there is a default anti-atheist agreement: that such thinking would lead to a scary Nihilistic outcome. Note that while the Soviet Union and China have banned the prior official religions, they remained at minimal, a form of religion based solely on the meaning of their own ideal of Communism: an ideal FUTURE WORLD where we all live in a heaven on Earth. The religious part comes from the fact that "Communism" is only the end goal. To get there though requires the present living people to agree to any set of SACRIFICES for that future's children. Where is the logic in presuming that the future's condition (rather than the present) is worthy of sacrifice unless you have some sort of religious belief that you extend your own 'consciousness' through your progeny? That is, while I might love my children today, how can you think there is something more special to consider for some future non-existing progeny that may itself never exist. An asteroid could come by and completely annihilate the world precisely as that ideal might be reached. Then what would that sacrifice mean. The only way that those country's could function through the temporary period of Republican Socialism to set the stage for that ideal future would require some form of INCENTIVE of 'hope' that nothing BUT religious, cultural, or artificial manufacturing could serve to get to that end. In other words, some form of religion in those (anarchic-type) societies need to be MANUFACTURED still. This is why even Hitler's Nazis opted to favor the formal Nihilist concepts. They only differed by the Communists in strategy.....they embraced religion AS required without pretence of it being non-essential. An example of what we CAN do is to recognize when and where religious ideals creep into politics and stop enabling lawmaking that utilizes these with clarity. An excellent example of this is our Canadian "Bilingual" laws. How can this NOT be interpreted logically as a bias to favor a superiority belief about one or both of these languages? If there is no actual bias, we'd require to either have ALL languages as 'official' or none. We cannot have none because this is our means to effectively communicate the laws we make collectively. But then we have to choose only ONE 'official' language, whether this be arbitrarily selected or forcefully assigned at some initial period. It doesn't impose upon others to demand they cannot express themselves but that they have to be the ones to TRANSLATE their expression to the official one if their appeal is to be about laws that affect us all. This is identical to the nature of selecting 'official' universals for science and math. What value would it be to allow the official status of measurements to be in distinctly SEPARATE optional languages? For instance, what universal value (over vice) would it be to allow people independently to select two distinct sets of symbols and their bases for the integers (0, 1, 2, 3, ...etc) based upon choice? Of course we DO have value to USE different symbols or bases for numbers but we still have the capacity to universally link them without confusion. We might select to have BOTH Imperial measures with Metric ones. But if we have some LAW that demands uniquely of more than one but not all, we'd require the responsibility to either make ALL people learn both (or all of the finite set of) languages to communicate or a means of EACH to have the legitimate capacity to translate themselves without requiring the faith to trust others to do this translation. [Without one's own capacity to KNOW how to directly translate can lead to problems when people of different systems communicate because we'd have to have FAITH in the MEDIUM of TRANSLATION to act.] This would be like if the Chinese opted in law (as a kind of World Individual) to refuse to use the Arabic numerals for their own traditional symbols. Their 'traditional' symbols MAY be in base 3, (or like the Babylonians, base-60!). While we can be SURE that translation is possible, by faith or by learning both languages, having the 'freedom' to EXCLUSIVELY select ONLY ONE as a law, ISOLATES those people from a 'freedom to understand' the laws made in alternate languages without faith. I went into depth on this latter example because it points out that while there CAN be means of allowing select ARTISTIC expression as an OFFICIAL concept of a select finite set of symbols, the cost increases negatively against those who only speak one or none of the official languages (any others). This logically PROVES that our Canadian Bilingualism is biased to a form of artificial favoritism FOR those who either (a) speak both (a form of elitist favor to linguistic variety of those who can afford transitions between the two or more official languages) OR (b) speak in the language that favors their culture in the language they already speak. Those laws are thus "cultural" (and 'religious' given a belief that the select languages SHOULD be preserved intrinsically). Those who speak neither have a rightful beef against the arrogance of not also allowing their OWN language to be 'official'. This leads to demanding segregate laws that preserve their own languages in select communities they hold plural power in. It also ADDS the means to ISOLATE them because those children who learn their own limited community language are biased by default to be less competitive elsewhere without the added investment in learning the other 'official' languages. AND worse, it biases OUTSIDERS from entering those communities that now have successful religious/culture law that allow them that isolation. Is this sufficient as an example? I could use more. This is not what appears as a religious but nevertheless is in an indirect and hideous way. To balance the problems against the particular ONE 'official' language that would likely impose the cultures and religions that those language origins are more relative to, you have to include prevention of allowing those cultures OF the origin of that official language from being imposed in law: EXAMPLE, A law that requires reverence to the Engand's Queen, ....a law that requires all students be required to be taught Shakespeare uniquely as a prerequisite to pass language arts, ....a law that rewards some superior reverence to English simply because it might be 'official', etc. I hope you like reading because I feel I have to add another example.... The fear that human rights would be imposed upon is already one that exists with laws that permit cultural laws. It also actually ENHANCES violation by how positive corrective laws used to 'balance' seemingly unfair real problems through affirming SPECIFIC laws FOR peoples BASED upon cultural definitions. The laws to balance out some apparent injustice between the sexes, for instance are often actually caused DUE to gender cultural ignorance of perception about what the real problem is. If more women are biased of pay using a statistic that measures CEO salaries as paying men way more, it is MORE likely due to the nature of women's culture of 'femininity' that those majority of women hold by default of themselves and the nature of the expectant 'masculine' dominance of a CEO position. But 'femininity' (treating it to mean, 'the artistic interpretation of what more women in the past held') is NOT OWNED by the nature of one being literally female. That the words relate are accidental to the culture. As such, MEN who are also 'feminine' are also likely to fit into the same class of those who don't get CEO high salaries. See how the ARTISTIC interpretation of the perspective of the problem itself is skewed? For an illustration of the absurdity of those who think that women (not merely effeminate people of any sex) are being treated anti-humane, should we not also demand laws that put an equal amount of women in the prison system to make it 'fair'? Why is no one complaining that there is an inhumane treatment of men over women to the interpretation of what qualifies as a 'crime'? The reality that the kind of crimes we treat as most vile are those that are 'masculine' is also a cultural factor. That men are more likely to do this is based upon EMBRACING specific cultures in prior social or political laws of the past through time. We tend to treat this by inappropriately making 'laws' (cultural or legal) that target men as perpetrators and women as victims when, again, the crimes are actually DUE to culture/religious assumptions of the past. The solution that many embrace as 'humane' for this problem is often: "Never ever should any man ever hit a woman!" with the implicit sexist bias that assumes that only men, rather than "masculine culture" is the cause. Here "masculine culture" does NOT mean men even though this may have been traditional. A law that appropriately (and unbiased to any 'culture' nor 'sex') is to have a law that asserts, "Never ever should anyone ever hit another person." THIS would be non-cultural, non-religious, and non-sexist, as a law. The laws made today tend to reflect bias when they address a problem that is based upon a logical factor (like that getting hit is abusive) get confused as a religious and illogical one (that only women can be abused when hit) precisely because of a prior religious one of some traditional past (that men should be selected for their physical dominance by women) and by illogical connections (like that given the majority of those hurt are women who get hit by men MEAN that all men ARE MEAN by their intrinsic nature and all women subjects of intrinsic victims of only men.) If this is too confusing to address in depth, than would it not be simpler to just keep laws that address non-cultural interpretations of the nature of abuse? To RECONVENE to this thread by Altai, much of the problems often resort to those interpretations of statistics that get get abused by inappropriate logic. I already begun threads here and elsewhere about the problems of statistics (and think even Altai may have borrowed this idea for her own here). A stat that says, using the last example above, "2/3 of all women in their lifetimes will experience some form of abuse", implies that non-women represent an exclusive privilege in opposition because of its very exclusion of a stat representing all people. It might be also true that "2/3 of all men in their lifetimes will experience some form of abuse." In that case, that missing detail implies a biased agenda to favor the class 'women' at the expense of men should this be an appeal to alter laws. It then represents a kind of 'religious' belief that is also implicit: "No women deserves abuse, uniquely" (and thus that, "Men are incapable of abuse or are irrelevant to require laws where they potentially are.")

You are arguing fine against Altai's position with nice depth of response. On this post response, though, I partly agree and disagree. The Nazis are only 'Nihilist' with respect to realities about success in power relations. With Social Darwinism, they agree that nature tends to favour no one and is "nihilistic" in this respect. But they more support the concept that IF God is dead, then people would still recreate it. For the National Socialists, they believed that success of any prosperity belonged to those who HAVE an ethnically strict and isolated support system based STRONGLY in RELIGION, ....NOT atheism. They admired the strength of those who defined themselves BY their Nationality and ironically, to the very strength of the Jews as the strongest version they believed MADE them economically most successful/prosperous. This was a big reason for their Anti-Jewish stance. They believed the Jew would never adapt due to the nature of their strong religious belief as the 'chosen ones' (a form of 'superiority' belief) and so both wanted to ADOPT to that strength and annihilate the Jew as THE major competing Nationalism in opposition to outsiders that included German-Nationalist. As such, they wanted to STRENGTHEN RELIGION for the Aboriginal Germans, and get them united by a common religious root. In light of this, I personally believe that RELIGION is the problem, and today's defence of 'culture' using legislative means by ANY religion IS a bigger problem. We need to recognize that the problems occurring in the world often result from REAL economic disparities but that the means of securing POWER for most political ideologies USE religion, culture, and ethnicity, ....all forms of strong motivating mechanisms for ACTION that appeal with more power, just as other forms of ART have more emotional impact on us as individuals. Religion, not Atheism, is the threat because it is like placing our artistic heroes in power rather than the intellect. The philosophical Nihilists recognized this. STRENGTH favors those non-intelligent and most emotive factors for the masses. Altai is just wrong to make comparisons statistically at all, because all religions are used to justify non-intelligent behaviour everywhere. It's deluding to think that because religion ALSO features good things that they ONLY serve this. To compete for which religion causes more problems is like arguing why Rap is more problematic than Country music. Both have their virtues and vices. Both relate MORE to some ethnically identified and generally segregated subpopulation. But neither causes the INITIAL underlying conditions associated with those pluaralities. They only act as a smoke screen and falsely distract us from the real problems.

All media is getting worse. I'm concerned even about the internet services given you can't tell anything until you promise to pay in some trial before cancelling. Cable television here is going 'retro' for whatever reason. Also, we here particularly in Canada should not have cultural protections that force garbage upon us and pay a select set of Canadian actors and writers to operate without concern to compete. For those like Trudeau who vouch for forced cultural content, you likely don't watch television regardless and so your impositions are arrogant and destructive. Cable companies appear to be trying to appeal by adding "on demand" material for free. Most are older shows but they can use the quota of Canadian content that doesn't necessarily force you to watch it. But they are also trying other techniques, like speeding up some program rates a tad to push in more commercials. They've also added commercials now directly while watching and it is annoying....especially when there is significant material being blocked while they do it. By the way, does anybody think that art is arbitrary? That is, given the belief by some, what we are presented by force, some think we would embrace whatever is fed as though all art is equal in quality. ??

At least someone watches other than me. (Ha ha). I think the Big Brother program shows a lot about psychology of people that you couldn't normally get to see. That conversation they had shows how weird many people are thinking today on identity issues. They make up later but Baleigh (the girl), literally believed that JC was intentionally meaning insult or ignorance by simply using the N-word [I'm even finding it hard for me to say it given today's climate as an example because of this.] [The original word for the place black people came from was "Niger", that same area of both that name and "Nigeria" for the particular African American roots. Though many later re-interpreted the word as some derogatory label simply by the association with slavery, had they called them "African" back then instead, that word would be the A-word considered inappropriate to use to describe people of the continent of ? "Niger(ia)"? I think that others here on both sides of the interpretation of the Identity Politics issue should look at this as a good example. Both players show how division is easily made between people who actually SHARE common problems. If you're watching the show, other more interesting conflicts occur that we see but that the guests in the house cannot see. [Head of Household being cleverly conned by others that one GOOD friend is actually an ENEMY!] I proposed this before, but, again: I'd like to see an experiment of this done using real politicians. I'm guessing that Trump might have signed up for this idea given his own "The Apprentice". I wonder what it would be like to lock up all the leaders of all countries in a house like that with cameras everywhere all the time so that we could inspect how and why they think and do what they do. Trivia: What was significant about the very last episode of "The Apprentice" show on the day it aired? ...and how does it relate to the politics today?

I'm watching this season's Big Brother and on July 22, there was a conversation with a short person, JC, and a black girl, Bayleigh, where Bayleigh asked JC if "midget" was the appropriate description of him. He responded by explaining how "midget" and/or "dwarf" are derogatory terms no different than... [https://www.globaltv.com/bigbrother/video/promo/jc-uses-n-word-offends-bayleigh/video.html?v=1284228675784 ] If you guys can see this, listen how it evolves and tell me what you think. That is, was anyone being racist here?

Personally I'm more of a fan of things like archaeology and think that ANYONE"s history, whether good or bad, is all of ours, not something owned by some particular group based on genetic associations. The media is actually more responsible for creating diversity by announcing the protest with added innuendo of it being representative of some racist issue. It draws out both extremes. Regardless, instead of destruction as they were clearly intending to rile up others by doing, they can opt to find a means to MOVE those symbols into a museum and asking those who DO support the extremes to participate to preserve them with respect. We are proving how absurd this is today here in Canada as now people are demanding that John A MacDonald's statues should be destroyed with extreme offence.

I'm confused at your point. In the ancient times as they were transitioning from hunting and gathering, they had to meet together and negotiate a means of creating a civilization. Thus the 'tribal' concept of fascism was originally a call to agree that each of the DIFFERENT tribes shared something in common even though they did not necessarily agree on which truth about Nature itself presided. As such, they needed a means to agree not to fight with each other on the bases that "together,...they hold strong; but that divided they fall." That is ALL that the original 'fascist' concept referred to. By putting aside their differences but focusing on their common link to the LAND, they agreed that at least for those conspiring, they agreed they had a right to lands in times where relative outsiders where taking over. This theme is common to people regardless of having any particular religion or none at all. If you look at HOW they used some common theme by creating or recreating some myth about their roots to the land by some 'favor of the gods', this was their means of adding emotive force to their coalition. This is what those like the National Socialists recognized was powerful. The use of declaring some link to Nature ("God" == "Nature" to them), they wanted to establish a justifiable reason to take back their lands when foreign powers were utilizing the ignorance of the tribes to claim land, just as the North American Natives were treated when Europeans came over. That is, the religion and tribalism used to bring people together is an accident due to the traditional peoples losing power in lands they were from. You need to first recognize the actual problem before you can attack them. "Fascism" isn't a cause but a reflected result of things like poverty of a larger subset of people in a place their ancestors originally came from. As such you need to focus on solutions to the FACTS, not the emotive religious effects that follow because of it. This is NOT unique to fascism but to most political groups. When a relative 'native' population becomes isolated and trapped AS OUTSIDERS in their own lands, by virtue of becoming impoverished at the expense of initially welcoming outsiders, the result is for those 'tribes' (as 'floaters' upon the land) rebel with reason. The end result is some movement where some FORCE is used to an unusual extreme to overthrow those in power. Muhammad was a war hero but at the time created a coalition of disparate groups of a similar condition. The 'religion' came AFTER the change and is more often amplified with reverence to the heroes who brought this about long after those heroes die. That is, the 'religion' of Islam was not of Muhammad necessarily but of a latter community reflecting on who brought them 'peace'. Sanctioned violence comes from more than one side. The extremes of the desperate only appear relatively more vile by those presently in power who by default have the bigger guns and so don't NEED to appear this way. But it doesn't mean they aren't as 'evil' in their own behavior. "Fascism" and MORE relevantly, "National Socialism", is specifically about connecting the tribes to a common myth about who they are with respect to the land. They do this by focusing on their genetic roots because only genetics is the more apparent common link of those tribes. Islam is not even a good example of this in its origin. They use a religious means to do this because it says that Nature (via God) dictates that they are somehow MORE justly the rightful owners of the land. As such, this gets used to both get others to join in and to find emotional power to fight....especially when they are by default 'weak' and divided normally. ["National Socialism" meant to favor 'socially' those 'Native' to a region and to their common genetic group wherever they expand to with exception. So one who is German by Hitler's concept is also extended to Germans even wherever they can be empowered to conquer. So they were a tad bit more 'racist' than the Italian form of Nationalism. They borrowed this concept from their beliefs of why the Jews themselves were strong and exclusive wherever they existed such as their 'Diaspora'. Our North American Natives are being oddly encouraged to STRENGTHEN this idea of themselves without those encouraging this to recognize what WILL be a problem in some future should they collectively take a stance with sufficient power.]

How you are linking 'human trafficking' to this is weird. This term is another one that has evolved to something unrelated to its original meaning. The term is specifically meaning the TRADE of HUMANS, such as slavery, with a specific reference to those being traded usually for prostitution of people against their will. How is this even generally accepted by any collection of people for any duration anywhere? [Human Trafficking is NOT as prevalent as some even presume! It cannot persist long without being exposed because even in prisons, rapists of the innocent are not perceived with open arms.]

Everyone takes historical figures as 'models' for their philosophy. What usually matters is the content but often degrades into idol/hero worship inappropriate to the initial movements based on reality. I already hold that religion is a secondary reflection of a secular reality based on political/economic reality. Religious devolution from original secular reality is what needs to be challenged against the religious, not a mere accusation against them for being 'evil' by some external standard we might see from outside of them. That is, you can accuse the religious of being intolerant by being 'fascist' or some other derogatory label and it will only be ignored when the meanings of the words are only being heard as "you're evil!" without proving they have some hypocritical understanding of themselves by their understanding of 'evil'. The link to 'fascism' is not relevant because ALL societies evolve through the stages of tribal collectivism and is originally NOT a bad thing by its original meaning. That the word 'fascism' has become a derogatory descriptive word is only due to the history of those actual past governments that have LABELLED themselves as 'fascism' by an original positive interpretation by themselves. If some party labelled themselves as "the Good Party", and they turned out to be bad, the term "Good" only becomes derogatory relative to how that historical party becomes despised later. Similarly, the term, "fascist" was used to describe something originally ideal that many relate to positively by meaning. But this perversion of meaning is no different than the religious who have contorted the original history of something into something 'idolized' without recognizing its original meaning. So you can't accuse them of something by a bad label without expanding on what you understand the meaning is with respect to their reality. How is a religion, like Islam, to you, acting 'fascist'? Are you expanding your meaning to ALL of the class of Muslims even if they ,may promote their religion to non-Arabic people? If so, they are not 'fascist' by meaning. One who is Israeli who may believe that one who is Jewish AND has family ancestral roots that link them to Palestine are more 'fascist' in this meaning if they exclude those without Semitic roots, for instance. So people may agree that 'fascism' is not something they favor but disagree to your link of Islam uniquely to be fascist. The root of fascism is about favoring ones' family (genetic) heritage with respect to some place that ignores whether the families collecting relate to anything more than that relationship. It is bad when it fosters hatred against immigrants with extreme prejudice through behaviors like extermination (genocide) or other less but relatively extreme abuse indirectly (like refusing them passage or a right to eat, for instance). While many Islamic groups may favor this, you need to note that it is not intrinsic specifically about Islam but to ALL cultures/religions. I'm just not getting why you are focusing on Islam when this would be interpreted as intolerant of 'outsiders' in the very way that fascism often treats outsiders uniquely as being bad without pointing out where that kind of behavior is also bad within your own 'inside' groups too?

"Islam" is a general CLASS word that just means any religion believing in something regarding the historical Muhammad and the Qu'ran. Similarly, "Christianity" is a general CLASS word that references any religion believing in something regarding the historical Jesus and its New Testament. You have to be more specific or have to digress into a discussion of RELIGION itself. I think you are as ignorant as many who think "Christianity" means their own specific brand of Christianity they stupidly presume is universally agreed upon. The problems about ANY political ideology relates to a belief about some GENETIC link to their political IDEOLOGY, not merely about some religious class. All religious classes have their degrees in similar distinctions of such beliefs. You definitely imply some particular favor of your own religion because you cannot argue against some specific class UNIQUELY without recognizing this relates to ALL religions. Religion, like 'culture', is used more often as a form of justification absent of LOGICAL reasons apart from equal consideration of others. That two or more ethnicities may have EQUAL rational justifications lacking 'fair' considerations, make using religion to justify why they act more 'fair' in their own eyes relative to others. So when certain groups associated to some common link believe they are suffering FOR genetic biases, they USE some cultural/religious reason to BIND each other with EMOTION where normal reasoning would not justify their distinct causes of suffering. If you believe there is some problem with Islam, I challenge you to try to determine their underlying NON-religious causes. Only cultural-religious justifications HIDE the underlying problem and act as a means to UNITE others when they can't see why their conditions are harming certain pluralities over others. If everyone believes in the same 'game rules' but disagree with the arbitrary justification for their extreme losses (or extreme gains), they appeal to irrational religious justifications for why others are evil and they are themselves inherently 'angelic'. What is your latent religious affiliation in contrast to your presumption about Islam?

@9-18-1 "Fascism" is an old term referencing collective strength of tribes by the common analogue that a single stick is weak and breakable but a collection of them are strong. Fascism was inclusive of any group, not just "national socialists" who demanded a coalition of disparate subgroups normally unassociated to each other, to recognize a common link regarding their native 'aboriginal' bond to the lands that now seem to be overtaken by outsiders. [Something that our own Multiculturalism is actually fostering within our own Aboriginals in Canada!!] The problem is completely unrelated to Islam. You are merely ignorant of associating old terms that have derogatory meaning to some group you don't personally like without careful thought. All religions, whether moderately 'liberal' or extremely conservative and exclusive, are justifications for ACTION that many different political ideologies use to manipulate others. All you can say about Islamic forms of fascism can only relate to those particular EXCLUSIVE groups IN THE MIDDLE EAST who believe they have an aboriginal justified link to their land that they use religion to BIND their people. Fascism does not go beyond borders. So if one is Islamic but in North America, they likely lack any fascist interest unless they specifically exclude non-Arabic members. It then associates ones GENETICS to their RELIGION, not simply about all those of the same religion. Hitler didn't appear to have specific religious ideals and their party favored only German Aboriginals but lacked a common historical CLEAR connection of all those that party wanted to unite. As such, they were 'fascist' but wanted to create a history of common link to justify a kind of religious bond of those deemed, "German". He also did not necessarily (originally) hate Jews outside of their apparent STRENGTH they seemed to have as a "nation" without borders that successfully operated by a form of bias of their own 'fascist' type of exclusion. As such, he targeted them for what they represented in 'competing' interest to creating a German-aboriginal identity. Many Jewish representatives also seemed to be associated with the penalties against Germany from WWI and in the economic downturn of the late 20s and 30s, made them stand out as relative 'winners' at the expense of the many who were losing. Fascism and National Socialism are products of fear in uncertain times. National Socialism doesn't necessarily restrict itself to borders as plain-old 'fascism' that relates more specifically to linking the lands. So if an Islamic group outside of the traditional lands exist in bias of all others, they would be more specifically self-isolated in the U.S. to some racially identified group of the old world and EXCLUDE others from joining!! While such groups likely exist, they would not be of the average here and trivial UNLESS they are segregated FROM OUTSIDE. That is, your very accusations support a discrimination against Muslims here to which many of the youth who feel such will be more willing to isolate and become extreme because of your kind of attitude. Note that we have more Christian such groups here who isolate themselves with strong beliefs about their own genetic beliefs than Muslim ones. So being Muslim is NOT relevant to your fear. If you want to continue thinking of this as about religion, then you have to question all religions equally. None are immune to Nationalistic or Fascist beliefs.

Being left-of-center and complaining about this within others there is frustrating as hell. What's worse is that you present the point and then you get complete silence without further open discussion. That others there simply deplatform anyone disagreeing is also making the left more and more polarized towards ONLY those who follow suite on this counter-logical thinking about identity. I still hold that unless we challenge the constitution with its provisions of protection for the Catholic/Anglican churches and the political elite of the families of the traditional-Canada (Ontario-Quebec alliance), we will remain in this grey uncertainty. The U.S. is also countering their own First Amendment and could use a redress to repair this if possible. I'm more pissed that all the media in Canada and the U.S. are completely on-board with this Identity-politics counter-racist/counter-sexist behavior. Notice that the media now reporting on the Charlottesville statue incident blatantly reference ALL people questioning tearing down the statues of history as "White Supremacists". Can't anyone not notice that this is no different than the ancient Egyptians destroying the temples of those reigns the newer Dynasties go against? Why should history be obliterated and reconstructed in today's emotional imagination? Ironically, the same kind of supporters would still not question questioning the Holocaust facts by those they themselves interpret as 'reconstructionists' of history! ...very hypocritical thinking.

If Bernier were instead able to point out THAT the Trudeau government (from Pierre's) originally set the Constitution to bias specific historical cultures and NOT all cultures, he may have a better stance because only arguing degree makes it worse for the Conservatives because of their tendency to 'mono-' cultures. Why would the majority of culture-favoring people want a side that only favors a smaller subset of cultures than a larger one? Not to offend any specific groups, the reality is that ANY wealth will tend towards more mono-cultural systems when it is based in more pure capitalistic means. For the same reason, there will always be some culture on the economic bottom that tends to get concentrated in population. These are due to the fact that humans are limited to FAVOR what is more closely related to them by family links, not merely because of racist beliefs. To avoid bias, Bernier would require not pointing to 'extreme' Multiculturalism, but to ANY Culturalism (laws made for/against specific cultures).

You don't get what I'm saying. First, "Multiculturalism" is not "multiculturalism". It is a unique Canadian trademarked version that utilizes the fact that even favoring TWO or THREE cultures is technically, "multicultural" (intended common interpretation that means one favors many cultures diversely). But in fact, it is no different than MONOCULTURALISM when it actually means strictly a select few cultures, not ALL. It is also "forced" in that it is constituted of all people here in Canada without concern about the actual significant minority, the individual. When you guys who favor Mono-culturalism through your usual W.A.S.P. stereotype, you don't help us by arguing against Trudeau for the same reason that the White Supremacists of a rally against taking down historical statues takes the dominant notice: you STEAL the attention of the problem by negating DEGREE of cultural problems when it is actually ANY LAWS that favor culture or religion that is the problem. As such, you ruin it for us all when we want to argue with a logical stance. No one pays attention to anyone but the extremes. And you guys represent not ANTI-Cultural lawmaking but MONO-cultural lawmaking. As such, you are WORSE if you get in power!!! I'm tired this. The reason the left are acting Segregationist rather than Integrationist is that they don't believe they can beat the means of the hard tactics the right normally uses. As such, they have adopted the tactics OF THE RIGHT by utilizing some of the Machiavellian methods that don't use logic but emotions to appeal. I disagree with the left doing this but find the right already default to this methodology and so disapprove of both. The reality is that we need to attack laws that specify favor nor disfavor to ANY CULTURE OR RELIGION. We need to address the constitution or no matter what occurs, the game is just about who has the stronger emotional impact. And in this case, you will lose because when everyone is all using a 'cultural' Nationalistic stance, the left has MORE 'Nationalist' groups on their side. The only hope we have is if your Conservatives stop using the very Machiavellian tactics that the left are FORCED to use to overrule your own. We don't NEED "cultural" conservation laws, no 'heritage' department, or any form of SPECIFIC internal system that directs what is 'good art' for us versus 'bad art'. This is what it reduces to. Canadian law dictates that we MUST favor specific kinds of art in the guise of universal truth. There is nothing about one's past culture that requires special consideration of laws that discriminate from others. AND....most specifically for those who don't associate with any specific group, we should not have to pay heed to a system that dictates we must fit in with one of a set of 'acceptable cults' based on genetic identity.

"Culture" is inherent in social beings. But it is merely the definition of a common set of behaviors in some group in time or place, whether it be of a country OR an individual. Culture, by individuals, are their set of defining behaviors they LIKE to do based upon their OWN selective choices. So 'culture' will always exist. Where the problems occur is when specific groups in political power USE LAWS to enforce some select set of cultures both constitutionally and in law that are based on a belief that traditional behaviors of individuals are INHERENT GENETIC traits, like some DNA encoding. For instance, if one who is Irish who believes they have some inherent gene that makes them necessarily believers in Leprechauns and so should have laws that conserve that right to all those genetically linked to those Irish roots. It is not 'democratic' to favor laws that command forced inherent rights upon individuals without their own right to choose what they like as "culture". I may be born white with accidental Irish heritage, but could be adopted to a Native-blooded family never knowing such 'culture' of my ancestry. Would I 'own' something "Irish"? Would I 'own' my adopted Native families heritage? Neither to me is a rightful means for laws to be made to favor nor disfavor. In fact, favoring any culture is just like having some law that asserts that someone of England necessarily likes Shakespeare or that one who is Italian necessarily likes Opera. Culture is art. But in practice, it is actually RELIGION at the true core because it imposes laws that lock in certain religiously assumed heritage. That is, the reason 'culture' is pushed whether singularly or in multiple forms, is to impose some set of religious beliefs in LAWS. Using 'culture' or 'multicultural' laws is to distract us to look at more favorable yet still discriminatory behaviors as inherent to specific people. But it ignores that if you adapt favorable stereotypes, it logiclally requires outsiders to also rightfully presume the negative stereotypes. You can't say I am born to like X but that it is silly for others then to be born to not like X. If it is favorable genetically to like a Picasso, it should be genetically favorable to dislike a Picasso. If you accept a stereotype that says all people genetically born with African decent owns a right to Rap, for instance, because Rap was initially created from some African American 'culture' at some time and place, you'd have to accept the negative stereotypes associated with the themes of gang-life, drugs, and murder, that the music associates with that same community. This is ridiculous. Why is it alright, on the same idea, for one to be privileged to use certain words for one group but not for the other?

You guys are only helping to show WHY there is a problem. You treat the problem as about some causal problem of the intrinsic ideals of the left when it is actually the intrinsic ideals of 'conservatives' who, if they are NOT in the larger majority, COLLECT within those parties that USE the ideals of the left as a false front to counter the CULTURE of the majority. The problem is that ANY 'culture' granted power specifically in a Constitution is necessarily some form of "theocratic" lock-in of some interest or another. The 'right' parties are usually of the conservative already IN POWER who want to IMPOSE their culture upon everyone universally. The 'left' parties (in spite of apparent ideologies) are always taken over by the relatively 'liberal' forms of religious cultures that arrogantly think that religions are all true EQUALLY and specifically among what is considered those who interpret them with flexibility. That half of any general religious class, like Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, are strict to keeping interpretation fixed regarding their religions makes them necessarily UNIFORM in their beliefs about what occurs when in power. It MUST, to them, be a government that aims to make the people conform to their specific belief without flexibility. The other half are those who believe that religions are of some god that exists but that they are less certain of which truth is precisely true. As such, they interpret that there is 'some' truth where everyone at least has some common thread of truth about in all LIBERAL religions (freely interpretable). But because the literalist 'right' of EACH religion can never agree when in power to others of similar agreement of those differences, those right-wing preferring cultures take OVER the left if only to overthrow or diminish the present 'right'-wing religious domination specifically. Example: A strict Islamic conservative religion would never agree to join in with a strict Christian conservative religion. They 'agree' in principle to a right to have political right to impose religious beliefs but conflict because each of their own cannot logically coincide. So only one could exist as some party on the right. This means that either there would be multiple divisive right-wing parties who would agree in principle but could never actually have enough power to rule as a majority without the prior power they need to establish that majority prior to becoming that majority. This means that it is 'necessary' for those conservative strict religions who lack contingent majorities or sufficient plurality to rule with confidence, to join up with the left and appeal to a feigned appeal to "diversity". In meaning, they simply 'agree' temporarily to set aside their clear differences of conservation to disempower those other conservatives of other religions in some way. The actual 'liberal' or 'progressives' are irrelevant when the economy is suffering. As such, this is the time when the left gets most "counter-progressive" for long-standing groups of their side (like to support strengthening Aboriginal Nationalism) and "uniquely-progressive" for specific new groups based upon 'liberating' classes of people within religions that are most strongly denied of most conservative forms....like the pro-gender politics that treats ones choices as GENETIC. Who gets lost is all of the actual population that is not literally religious but are scapegoated by all political sides knowing that they are forced OUT of competition by simply BEING distinctly individual and more DIVIDED by all those strict religious groups. This is what and why the Middle East (and even Africa) is always at odds within. They are worlds where the economic problems strongly exist. It favors more 'conservative' bent politics such that you can never repair unless they have some magical fortune of economy that favors a large majority of people. We are screwed. And you guys above who falsely continue to attack the 'ideals' of the left are either missing that those ideals are NOT extant there or are purposely adapting this rhetoric to attempt to hide that the problems are actually about "conservative" thinkers of CULTURE and RELIGION. You guys are not against CULTURE, you are just against the MULTICULTURAL forms of political imposition. What you all agree to is to SOME CULTURE as a right to POWER. I don't believe I could alter anyone on this. I'm left-wing and get ignored being presumed to be right-winged for challenging this there for the same logic. If it weren't true of the left, I'd have open dialogue with ease by many others on the left. This doesn't occur because they are locking out those who AREN'T strictly 'conservative' for "MULTICULTURALISM" by their own particular terms. The money raised by any of those conservative interests controlling the left makes the left here NON-progressive and only SELECTIVELY-liberal. If you guys on the right care to appeal, you can't simply attack those of us on the left who have actual 'progressive' nor 'liberal' views but to appeal to us for some means to defeat the laws of any constitutional means that allows laws to be made regarding culture or religion is a similar way to the American's First Amendment. I'm doubting this will occur though without better times world-wide. And history proves that as we have evolved, those OLDER WORLDS become the worlds that NEVER get better and only get worse (like the Middle East and Africa, etc.)

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_school this helps explain it. We are a 'federal' system meaning what laws are federally constituted applies to its subdivision governments (as provinces). Thus, since the Constitution of Canada federally asserts a separate school provision uniquely to protect the specific Roman or Anglican Catholics, this law overules provincial laws WHERE CHALLENGED. As to a province opting to end 'provincial' funding, this may be challenged in the upper courts. But it is a touchy situation for ALL our Canadian political parties who favor at least some religious supporters of one religion or another. As such, it is not easy to be MOTIVATED by certain interests without care because they ALL want some 'theological' power politically protected. This is counter to the United States First Amendment that specifically addressed this concern. The founders then recognized that in order for fair and equal representation in government for and by all, you cannot allow laws of any SPECIFIC subset of cultural discretion to have laws without imposing limits on others. We ARE a form of "theocracy" but pretend we are something akin to the United State's ideals. As long as no one is able to get a platform to challenge this, those protected religions and others that negotiate behind the scenes with those protected groups as proxies, the laws will be made to try to hide the reality for fear of those within those churches to lose their political power. They also KNEW that the United States First Amendment presented this limitation and so try to obscure the meaning to the general 'dumbed down' society who thinks that "Multiculturalism (TM)" is identical to favoring ANY cultures. "Culture" also hides the fact that religion is specifically what is being protected, given religion is the driving force behind their meaning of culture as it is presented.