DogOnPorch Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 http://www.statcan.gc.ca/concepts/definitions/minority-minorite1-eng.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) We have some oddities and some incongruities. In Ontario, the public funding of religious schools is one area that has led to some legislative oddities such as the government telling religion what it can or can't teach. Yeah...maybe more to the point (or maybe just more interesting to me) was the HRC matter. Quite a number of cases rightly deemed controversial, notably the most famous involving Levant and Steyn. I just think that the fact that Steyn is a monumental creep (and its almost objectively demonstrable, unlike most pejoratives) doesn't mean we shouldn't defend his right to expression. (Indeed, it's entirely irrelevant.) Edited November 4, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 http://www.statcan.g...norite1-eng.htm Ok - "our system" here means "visible minorities" for targeting hiring by the government. Sure, that's part of our system but is it 'our system' itself ? I would say the charter is the overarching document describing what Canada is. You could counter argue that our system values wealthy over poor, or anything if you use the entire complex of laws and policies in place here. It's your opinion, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 Yeah...maybe more to the point (or maybe just more interesting to me) was the HRC matter. Quite a number of cases rightly deemed controversial, notably the most famous involving Levant and Stein. I just think that the fact that Stein is a monumental creep (and its almost objectively demonstrable, unlike most pejoratives) doesn't mean we shouldn't defend his right to expression. (Indeed, it's entirely irrelevant.) Well, sure, but that is freedom of expression not freedom of religion - which I was referring to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 We have some oddities and some incongruities. In Ontario, the public funding of religious schools is one area that has led to some legislative oddities such as the government telling religion what it can or can't teach. I would imagine it would depend on what they are teaching whether or not the government should be telling religions what it can and can't teach. Regardless of whether or not they fund their schools. Jim Keegstra, for instance, is entitled to his views, and his right to express them. But not, I would say, to teach them to impressionable youngsters. I realise that was Alberta, not Ontario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 Well, sure, but that is freedom of expression not freedom of religion - which I was referring to. Sure...I was responding more generally to the thread topic (which is broadly about freedom of speech). It might have been more clear if I hadn't quoted you directly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 Ok - "our system" here means "visible minorities" for targeting hiring by the government. Sure, that's part of our system but is it 'our system' itself ? I would say the charter is the overarching document describing what Canada is. You could counter argue that our system values wealthy over poor, or anything if you use the entire complex of laws and policies in place here. It's your opinion, I guess. Our system* is highly discriminating on that level. Not universal, but is still wide ranging and applies more than just to government office workers. *ie The Employment Equity Act Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 I would imagine it would depend on what they are teaching whether or not the government should be telling religions what it can and can't teach. Regardless of whether or not they fund their schools. I do think there are differences in policy between public and private religious schools but I don't know them offhand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 Our system* is highly discriminating on that level. Not universal, but is still wide ranging and applies more than just to government office workers. *ie The Employment Equity Act Point taken. They can change that wording a lot more easily than the constitution if required. They don't address the Irish problem in that legislation either, maybe because it's not a concern to Upper Canadians any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 The text for the video states that it was posted on Jul 26, 2012, in reference to "a Constitution Subcommittee hearing yesterday..." and this is what Obama said to the U.N. the end of September, iow, after the hearing in the video, in regards to the Muhammad video: Is that what this babbling about Obama turning the U.S. into a Muslim nation is all about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 Point taken. They can change that wording a lot more easily than the constitution if required. They don't address the Irish problem in that legislation either, maybe because it's not a concern to Upper Canadians any more. The Irish are not a minority next to Bangla Desh, apparently. I'm not sure why..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 The Irish are not a minority next to Bangla Desh, apparently. I'm not sure why..... The Bangladeshis will probably be off the list in a similar amount of time. Or more likely there won't be a list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 The Bangladeshis will probably be off the list in a similar amount of time. Or more likely there won't be a list. Let's hope. Racism is foul in any form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 I watched that video and I didn't see anything about Obama making criticism of Islam illegal. I saw someone continually get interrupted and talked over when they were trying to explain the difference between threatening and criticising a religion, the former of which will remain illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 Racism is foul in any form. Yes, that's why affirmative action came into place in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 Yes, that's why affirmative action came into place in the first place. In the US perhaps...slaves ESCAPED to Canada...as did many Natives. We have rules like this in Canada due to political correctness rather than any real problem with "minorities" getting hired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 In the US perhaps...slaves ESCAPED to Canada...as did many Natives. We have rules like this in Canada due to political correctness rather than any real problem with "minorities" getting hired. Political Correctness is a bogey man. I don't know what that is, and I doubt anybody does. It's well-intentioned in any case, but I will meet you 1/2 way on this one. I just went away and did a 5 minute Google research (therefore comprehensive, ) on affirmative action. I have supported it in principle, but reading your post I realize that it has been in place for at least 1 or 2 generations. Its effectiveness is not clear, and so I'm wondering if it needs to be changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 Political Correctness is a bogey man. I don't know what that is, and I doubt anybody does. It's well-intentioned in any case, but I will meet you 1/2 way on this one. I just went away and did a 5 minute Google research (therefore comprehensive, ) on affirmative action. I have supported it in principle, but reading your post I realize that it has been in place for at least 1 or 2 generations. Its effectiveness is not clear, and so I'm wondering if it needs to be changed. Political correctness is referring to the Chinese as minorities when one quick visit to Vancouver can tell you the vast majority of the Asian population is neither a minority nor in need of a leg-up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 ...the vast majority of the Asian population is neither a minority .... You realize I can't let that one go by, don't you ? Your definition of PC is too specific. How about I help you out ? I was helping out Mr. Canada earlier today, so now I can help you too. "Political Correctness is a bunch of goody-goody ideas that are supposed to helped depressed minorities". I can accept that, even with the looseness of the definition since it doesn't say whether they work or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 Political correctness is referring to the Chinese as minorities when one quick visit to Vancouver can tell you the vast majority of the Asian population is neither a minority nor in need of a leg-up. Right. Affirmative action would have meant that my colleague in Vancouver, when we worked for the BC government, would have received preferential treatment should a better position become available. He owned two houses on the west side of Vancouver and had a wife earning twice as much as both of us put together, while I lived in Surrey with a huge mortgage. It was a running gag between us. Affirmative action is not the way to end discrimination. Ending discrimination is the way to end discrimination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted November 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 In this video the person for Obama's DOJ is refusing to answer NO. he is refusing to rule out that they wouldn't try to do just that. He could've put all this bed right away but obviously has an agenda that may include trying to limit free speech where criticism of religion is concerned. That would include the left criticizing Christianity as well so they should be equally concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 Ending discrimination is the way to end discrimination. Right - empty platitudes were also a reason that Affirmative Action came about, since they effectively supported the status quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 He could've put all this bed right away but obviously has an agenda that may include trying to limit free speech where criticism of religion is concerned. No, it's not obvious for reasons I already stated among others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 4, 2012 Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 Right - empty platitudes were also a reason that Affirmative Action came about, since they effectively supported the status quo. I, of course, would actually like to see discrimination ended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted November 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2012 No, it's not obvious for reasons I already stated among others. of course it is. if it's not the Presidents position to try and make it illegal to criticize Islam why didn't he just come out and say so instead he was skirting the question until the Rep ran out of time. He never gave an answer, thus you simply cannot come on here and state that it's ruled out. That's ridiculous. Now MH is speaking for people and putting words into their mouths and heads? Please tell me you aren't seriously doing this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.