The NDP’s hidden agenda....

[Black Dog]

So-called "affirmative action" policies, notions of "group rights" (i.e. Quebec as a distinct society over other distinct societies in Canada, "women's rights", "gay right" and other such nonsense), so-called "hate-speech" legislation, and the desire to homogenize people against their will (the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Vietnam, Islamist countries, and so forth). Unjustifiable discrimination is a staple of leftist ideology.

Try again: here's your claim:

For every racist on the right, there are several racists on the left.

Prove it.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

And now I'm suddenly having flashbacks to Bob's brief time here. I'm not saying this kraychik character is the same guy, but the similarities in their arguments, writing style and overall tone of smug assholery are pretty damn uncanny.

[TimG]

For every racist on the right, there are several racists on the left.

Prove it.

The trouble is people on the left are blind to racism when the racist is from an in vogue "victim" group. For example, most native rights advocates are unapologetic racists who argue that genetics mean some people are entitled to a myriad of special rights and privileges that must be paid for by the people without the right genetic lineage.

[Black Dog]

The trouble is people on the left are blind to racism when the racist is from an in vogue "victim" group. For example, most native rights advocates are unapologetic racists who argue that genetics mean some people are entitled to a myriad of special rights and privileges that must be paid for by the people without the right genetic lineage.

Examples? Cites?

[TimG]

Examples? Cites?

The entire premise that "natives" (a group defined by their genetic lineage) are entitled to special rights (e.g. exemptions from taxes) is a racist premise. Anyone who claims that such special treatment is morally justified is advocating racism. Do you really need me to dig up cites of people on the left advocating for native rights? It is a well known position.

Note that I make the distinction between people who reluctantly support native privileges because we are saddled with a racist constitution and people who actually think that native privileges are morally correct. The people who believe the latter are racists.

Edited July 10, 2012 by TimG

[Black Dog]

The entire premise that "natives" (a group defined by their genetic lineage) are entitled to special rights (e.g. exemptions from taxes) is a racist premise. Anyone who claim such special treatment is morally justified is advocating racism. Do you really need me to dig up cites of people on the left advocating for native rights? It is a well known position.

You said:

most native rights advocates are unapologetic racists

If true, it shouldn't be too hard to come up with some specific examples.

So yes, a cite would be nice.

Oh and do make sure it fits the criteria you set out for racism. Simply supporting native rights in general or advocating for a fair settlement of treaty obligations won't cut it.

Note that I make the distinction between people who reluctantly support native privileges because we are saddled with a racist constitution and people who actually think that native privileges are morally correct. The people who believe the latter are racists.

False choice.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Black Dog

[Canuckistani]

The entire premise that "natives" (a group defined by their genetic lineage) are entitled to special rights (e.g. exemptions from taxes) is a racist premise. Anyone who claims that such special treatment is morally justified is advocating racism. Do you really need me to dig up cites of people on the left advocating for native rights? It is a well known position.

Note that I make the distinction between people who reluctantly support native privileges because we are saddled with a racist constitution and people who actually think that native privileges are morally correct. The people who believe the latter are racists.

I don't support native privileges or the Indian act. At the same time, it has to be recognized that we did take their land. How we solve that conundrum in an equitable manner is beyond me. I do know that I'm against treaties that don't have an extinguishment clause. We need to find a way to integrate Natives where they have the same rights and responsibilities as everybody else. Never happen I guess. They will probably go from being a disadvantaged group to a permanently advantaged one.

[TimG]

At the same time, it has to be recognized that we did take their land.

Correction: the ancestors of some Canadians living today pushed the ancestors natives off their land. "WE" did not do anything. That said, there are really social issues that need to be addressed and some sort of self-government could be part of that solution. But there is a difference between trying to find pragmatic solutions to complex social problems and advocating principals that are inherently racist.

They will probably go from being a disadvantaged group to a permanently advantaged one.

My prediction: native treaties are creating a class of native 'Saudi Princes' that live extremely well while the majority of natives struggle. The struggles of the majority of natives will be endlessly used as a club to extort cash from the non-native majority. Edited July 10, 2012 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Correction: the ancestors of some Canadians living today pushed the ancestors natives off their land. "WE" did not do anything. That said, there are really social issues that need to be addressed and some sort of self-government could be part of that solution. But there is a difference between trying to find pragmatic solutions to complex social problems and advocating principals that are inherently racist.

My prediction: native treaties are creating a class of native 'Saudi Princes' that live extremely well while the majority of natives struggle. The struggles of the majority of natives will be endlessly used as a club to extort cash from the non-native majority.

I'm still waiting Tim.

[Moonlight Graham]

So-called "affirmative action" policies, notions of "group rights" (i.e. Quebec as a distinct society over other distinct societies in Canada, "women's rights", "gay right" and other such nonsense), so-called "hate-speech" legislation, and the desire to homogenize people against their will (the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Vietnam, Islamist countries, and so forth). Unjustifiable discrimination is a staple of leftist ideology.

You're not a fan of women's rights and gay rights? How are they discriminatory? You think "Islamist countries", whatever that means, are leftist (when Islamism is an extremely socially conservative ideology)?

There's an argument to be made that affirmative action is racist & certainly discriminatory, yet on the other hand it's attempting to counter racism & discrimination inherent in society's hiring behaviour.

[gunrutz]

I don't know if there is a hidden agenda, i doubt they have one any more than the conservatives do, but in their supporters as in the conservative's supporters, there is a portion of that support that feels they aren't anywhere nearly extreme enough in their views or policies. I wonder if the NDP would be more likely to move further to the left than the conservatives have to the right after winning an election, i tend to think they would.

[Topaz]

It seems in any country where majority of the people want their present government gone, they will vote for the opposition party with the most chance of getting the other party out of power.. So that being say, the NDP will be in the PMO, minority or majority, just as long and the Tories are gone.

[cybercoma]

I don't know if there is a hidden agenda, i doubt they have one any more than the conservatives do, but in their supporters as in the conservative's supporters, there is a portion of that support that feels they aren't anywhere nearly extreme enough in their views or policies. I wonder if the NDP would be more likely to move further to the left than the conservatives have to the right after winning an election, i tend to think they would.

I don't think the NDP is moving to the Left any time soon. There are plenty of people that are further up the ladder than rank and file who cringe any time the far left open their mouths and claim to be with the NDP. If the NDP is closer to the centre today than they were in the 70s and 80s, then it's worth checking out this link to see the NDP's aversion to the far left: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Waffle

In fact, The Waffle movement is closer to the Centre than the Communists or Marxist-Leninists in Canada. They were actually democratic socialists. Even in Broadbent's day, the NDP couldn't square itself with democratic socialists, contrary to what the preamble to their constitution says. The Waffle was just too extreme for them.

I would say your fear of the party moving further to the Left is very highly unlikely, given the party's history with groups that are further to the Left.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, thankfully have a pragmatist for a leader. His lust for power has allowed the electorate to keep him in check. However, the CPC is clearly further Right than the PC party. Furthermore, the Wildrose Party (as with the Tea Party in the US) seems to point to a worrisome threat of the Right making a shift to the far Right. They haven't fought off further Right elements with the same resolve as the NDP has with further Left elements.

An argument can be made that they have. Harper cares more about holding power than moving too far to the Right. Look at the way the cabinet stood together and shot down Woodworth's legislation. Harper also hasn't brought up gay marriage or abortion and continues to say those matters are closed. So there's evidence that he is being kept in check. What's concerning is that those further Right elements are clearly in the party and they have routed them out the same way that the NDP has in the past. What's troublesome is that they keep reminding the electorate that they are there by allowing people like Woodworth and having people like Toews bring up this legislation.

Couple this with the extreme nonsense from SUN Media and all the former Conservative workers there and it seems that they are trying to soften the public to a shift to the Right. It's as though these elements are a foil for them to play off, making their incremental rightward shifts seem more palatable to a voting public that is generally progressive minded.

Anyway, I'm rambling on now, but my point is that it seems to be the Conservatives that are most likely to shift the country, while the NDP have made it clear that they cannot tolerate the far left. This isn't a hidden agenda from the Conservatives though. Was it Harper himself (or perhaps Preston Manning?) that said he wasn't going to move to the party to the centre, but move the centre to the party?

[capricorn]

It seems in any country where majority of the people want their present government gone, they will vote for the opposition party with the most chance of getting the other party out of power.

We keep hearing how over 60 percent (the majority) did not vote for the Conservatives yet they still managed to win a majority. So if the majority of voters didn't want the Conservatives in the first place, how will this same majority manage to vote them out?

[cybercoma]

We keep hearing how over 60 percent (the majority) did not vote for the Conservatives yet they still managed to win a majority. So if the majority of voters didn't want the Conservatives in the first place, how will this same majority manage to vote them out?

They won't. I expect the Conservatives to win a minority government next election. If that happens, does Harper continue as leader or does he need to step down? A topic for another thread at another time.

[kraychik]

You're not a fan of women's rights and gay rights? How are they discriminatory? You think "Islamist countries", whatever that means, are leftist (when Islamism is an extremely socially conservative ideology)?

There's an argument to be made that affirmative action is racist & certainly discriminatory, yet on the other hand it's attempting to counter racism & discrimination inherent in society's hiring behaviour.

I reject any concept of "group rights". There is no such thing as "women's rights" or "gay rights". Everyone should be treated equally, no more and no less.

Thank you for the second part of your post, which reveals the racism that is endemic to the left. You sincerely believe that Canadian and/or the American society is so racist as to require "correction" through (racist) so-called "affirmative action" policies. What you're essentially saying is that the white majorities of these two countries are predominantly racist, and require government intervention to correct their behaviour. You reveal your own racism with this statement, and more broadly, the racism of the left. Again, thank you for your post. Nobody can expose the left better than its own membership in their own words.

[Black Dog]

I reject any concept of "group rights". There is no such thing as "women's rights" or "gay rights". Everyone should be treated equally, no more and no less.

Ah, I see: you don't know what those terms mean. Your position is born of ignorance.

Thank you for the second part of your post, which reveals the racism that is endemic to the left. You sincerely believe that Canadian and/or the American society is so racist as to require "correction" through (racist) so-called "affirmative action" policies. What you're essentially saying is that the white majorities of these two countries are predominantly racist, and require government intervention to correct their behaviour. You reveal your own racism with this statement, and more broadly, the racism of the left. Again, thank you for your post. Nobody can expose the left better than its own membership in their own words.

That's not racism, silly person.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Black Dog

[Moonlight Graham]

I reject any concept of "group rights". There is no such thing as "women's rights" or "gay rights". Everyone should be treated equally, no more and no less.

Good to hear that, I think everyone should be treated equally as well. Unfortunately, historically this isn't the case, and certain groups face certain discrimination. Women and gays and historically blacks and whatnot, aren't seeking special treatment, they're seeking equal treatment.

Thank you for the second part of your post, which reveals the racism that is endemic to the left. You sincerely believe that Canadian and/or the American society is so racist as to require "correction" through (racist) so-called "affirmative action" policies. What you're essentially saying is that the white majorities of these two countries are predominantly racist, and require government intervention to correct their behaviour. You reveal your own racism with this statement, and more broadly, the racism of the left. Again, thank you for your post. Nobody can expose the left better than its own membership in their own words.

First of all, you're jumping to conclusions about my views. I never said if I support affirmative action or not. In some cases I do, in some cases I don't. It's a very fine line because it's indeed essentially racist and discriminatory. Yes, certain groups are racist in their hiring practices: some whites will hire other whites over blacks or arabs etc., some jews will tend to hire jews, some indians or arabs or chinese will hire other indians, arabs or chinese etc. in specific cases (you can't generalize everyone).

Let me ask you: if you owned a business and had two candidates for a job who were equal in qualifications, yet one was white (or whatever your race you are) and one was Arab (and spoke with a bit of an Arabic accent), which one would you hire? I personally know managers and business owners who are racist in their hiring practices & have admitted such.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[Canuckistani]

Let me ask you: if you owned a business and had two candidates for a job who were equal in qualifications, yet one was white (or whatever your race you are) and one was Arab (and spoke with a bit of an Arabic accent), which one would you hire? I personally know managers and business owners who are racist in their hiring practices & have admitted such.

The Arab because I would get diversity brownie points. But how often do you get two exactly equal candidates? Maybe their education is equivalent, but the white guy has Canadian experience. Or your business has a large middle eastern clientele and the Arab will do better with them. What is their deportment and how do they fit in culturally with our norms - if he has an accent he's an immigrant from a much different culture. So it may not be exactly racism that chooses one over the other, but racial/ethnic qualities. And if the business owner is Arab, who will he choose if both are equal?

[kraychik]

Good to hear that, I think everyone should be treated equally as well. Unfortunately, historically this isn't the case, and certain groups face certain discrimination. Women and gays and historically blacks and whatnot, aren't seeking special treatment, they're seeking equal treatment.

Everyone is treated equally today, except for unjustifiably discriminatory practises implemented from the left with so-called "affirmative action" policies and other such quota systems. If it wasn't for the left, we'd have real equality of opportunity in Canada protecting us from widespread discrimination based on protected grounds.

First of all, you're jumping to conclusions about my views. I never said if I support affirmative action or not. In some cases I do, in some cases I don't. It's a very fine line because it's indeed essentially racist and discriminatory. Yes, certain groups are racist in their hiring practices: some whites will hire other whites over blacks or arabs etc., some jews will tend to hire jews, some indians or arabs or chinese will hire other indians, arabs or chinese etc. in specific cases (you can't generalize everyone).

I accurately called you out on your own racism, rooted in your leftist ideology. The only way a person can justify so-called "affirmative action" policies in their own mind is if they sincerely believe that certain groups are more subject to unjustifiable discrimination based on protected grounds than other groups. "Affirmative action" policies give certain advantages to arbitrarily-selected groups, at the expense of everyone outside of those groups. This is a zero-sum-game. In order to believe this false narrative, you must convince yourself that the majority of our society, which today is self-identifying white people, are sufficiently racist or prejudiced where they require the correction of a benevolent political system. You cannot justify racism or certain discrimination against certain groups without believing that these groups are engaging in these ills at a high enough level to justify this "reverse-discrimination". What this does is reveal your own racism towards white people. The funny thing is you don't even realise how much you expose yourself when you talk. Perhaps now you will tell me that you cannot possibly subscribe to a racist mentality when you yourself are white, or have white friends, or some other such irrelevant personal detail. Again, thank you for exposing the racism that is so common among the left.

Let me ask you: if you owned a business and had two candidates for a job who were equal in qualifications, yet one was white (or whatever your race you are) and one was Arab (and spoke with a bit of an Arabic accent), which one would you hire? I personally know managers and business owners who are racist in their hiring practices & have admitted such.

So hiring a person based on a stronger command of the English language is now racism? What if the Arab had no accent and the white guy did have a "bit of a foreign accent"? Would I be racist to hire the Arab guy with the better English? Thank you for exposing the absurdity of the left. Nobody can do this better than you, the left in its own words.

Edited July 11, 2012 by kraychik

[kraychik]

The Arab because I would get diversity brownie points. But how often do you get two exactly equal candidates? Maybe their education is equivalent, but the white guy has Canadian experience. Or your business has a large middle eastern clientele and the Arab will do better with them. What is their deportment and how do they fit in culturally with our norms - if he has an accent he's an immigrant from a much different culture. So it may not be exactly racism that chooses one over the other, but racial/ethnic qualities. And if the business owner is Arab, who will he choose if both are equal?

Perhaps it's none of Moonlight Graham's business who I want to hire and for what reasons I want to hire him or her? This insanity, when taken to its logical conclusion, means that a all sorts of ordinary desires are now criminalised.

Here are a few examples of this:

A female seeking a female roommate is now illegally discriminating against men.

The owner of an apartment building is only renting out to religious Jews who will observe the Sabbath and other Jewish holidays is now discriminating illegally against non-Jews.

A Halal butchery or other Muslim organisation (perhaps a Muslim summer camp) seeks to only hire other Muslims due to religious and social/cultural reasons is now illegally discriminating against non-Muslims (religion is a protected ground for discrimination).

A homosexual nightclub for men chooses to only hire gay bartenders and perhaps only permit gay men men into the club to maintain its niche atmosphere is now illegally discriminating against heterosexuals on employment and patronage.

The examples can go on forever, women's only gyms, men's only gold courses, black only organisations, etc.

[kraychik]

The Arab because I would get diversity brownie points. But how often do you get two exactly equal candidates? Maybe their education is equivalent, but the white guy has Canadian experience. Or your business has a large middle eastern clientele and the Arab will do better with them. What is their deportment and how do they fit in culturally with our norms - if he has an accent he's an immigrant from a much different culture. So it may not be exactly racism that chooses one over the other, but racial/ethnic qualities. And if the business owner is Arab, who will he choose if both are equal?

What if I hate white people because I belong to the same church as Barack Obama? Should I be forced to hire the white person against my own wishes? Why would a reasonable white person want to work for someone who is racist against white people, anyways?

[cybercoma]

Everyone is treated equally today

Uh... no.

[Moonlight Graham]

Everyone is treated equally today, except for unjustifiably discriminatory practises implemented from the left with so-called "affirmative action" policies and other such quota systems. If it wasn't for the left, we'd have real equality of opportunity in Canada protecting us from widespread discrimination based on protected grounds.

Absolute rubbish. In your brain all racism is gone from society except the white-on-white racism of affirmative action? Easily disproven. Is all sexism gone as well, like in the Catholic Church? And gays have equal rights, like in many U.S. states re: marriage?

What this does is reveal your own racism towards white people. The funny thing is you don't even realise how much you expose yourself when you talk. Perhaps now you will tell me that you cannot possibly subscribe to a racist mentality when you yourself are white, or have white friends, or some other such irrelevant personal detail. Again, thank you for exposing the racism that is so common among the left.

LOL you're talking out of your ass.

So hiring a person based on a stronger command of the English language is now racism? What if the Arab had no accent and the white guy did have a "bit of a foreign accent"? Would I be racist to hire the Arab guy with the better English? Thank you for exposing the absurdity of the left. Nobody can do this better than you, the left in its own words.

You didn't answer my question. I never said the Arab didn't have excellent command of the English language, I said they had an Arabian accent. Let's assume the Arab can speak perfectly understandable English to a Canadian in the same manner a Brit or Aussie can be understood by us with accents. Or better yet, let's say the Arab has no accent whatsoever. If you had to have renovations done in your home and you had to choose between a white man and an Arab man to do it, all other things being equal, who would you choose?

[Moonlight Graham]

Perhaps it's none of Moonlight Graham's business who I want to hire and for what reasons I want to hire him or her?

Or perhaps you don't want to answer the question because you will be revealed to be something you wish not to be made public. Certainly a poster on here who is feverishly anti-Muslim would have absolutely no reservations on having an Arab come into their home to do renovations.

At least I admit my racism

Edited July 11, 2012 by Moonlight Graham