Thank you Trudeau...

[Scott Mayers]

I'm comparing HOW the vigil of the Florida shooting is by contrast to the Boushie family vigil. What I am trying to convey about our Canadian means to perceiving issues that I disapprove of in contrast to the United States [not universally true] is to how WE TREAT issues as PRIMARILY CULTURALLY based whereas the Americans TREAT issues as PRIMARILY LOGICALLY based. 

I agree to the vigil of the Florida children because it doesn't treat the class "children" as victims that is culturally defined. Even though Trump speaks with ignorance of the guns for political difference, the issue of guns involved is also a logical difference, not a cultural one.

In contrast, Boushie's death was considered worthy of vigil primarily because it was interpreted that the significant crime that caused his death is classified as "Aboriginal" victims, NOT universally applicable to all people. 

 

This doesn't mean the Americans don't do this either. But the LAW, when we expect them to be attentive based on their constitution, has to be IMPARTIAL to one's race, sex, or religion. [and why I hold contempt for the American judge's sentencing of that gymnastic teacher]

We need to redress our constitution in my opinion to remove any cultural, religious, or traditional concepts. We need a form of the American's First Amendment (with better clarity!) to remove government's power to make culture our primary classification when perceiving logical issues.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Scott Mayers
accidental confused wording...fixed, i think.

[?Impact]

4 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I'm comparing HOW the vigil of the Florida shooting is by contrast to the Boushie family vigil.

You were at the Boushie family vigil two years ago?

[Scott Mayers]

Just now, ?Impact said:

You were at the Boushie family vigil two years ago?

The recent call of gatherings were considered 'vigils'. If they had some other vigil of the past, it MAY be appropriate. This thread is NOT about nor against the Boushie FAMILY from their personal vigils. Note the root of the word, "vigil" is where "vigilante" comes from. When one is angry emotionally about some issue, this has to be distinct and separate from the political factors. When the WHOLE of society joins into the emotional anger, it is sincere where it is about any arbitrary person we all are a part of. The recent Boushie uprising was not an appeal for justice for anyone arbitrarily but to Aboriginals SPECIFICALLY.

[Scott Mayers]

AT ISSUE of the CBC National is speaking on this NOW: 

 

[Scott Mayers]

Here is the podcast of the "At Issue" conversation: https://podcast-a.akamaihd.net/mp3/podcasts/atissue-wK6Edh9w-20180215.mp3

 

[?Impact]

21 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

The recent call of gatherings were considered 'vigils'

Yes, but a lot of water has passed under the bridge for the recent gatherings. I don't the comparison can be made between morning the loss of someone in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy and the recent gatherings.

[Scott Mayers]

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, but a lot of water has passed under the bridge for the recent gatherings. I don't the comparison can be made between morning the loss of someone in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy and the recent gatherings.

No it hasn't. In the above News and At Issue, they presented Trudeau's Parliamentary response to a "recognition and implementation of Aboriginal rights" concerning this. 

My contrast about the vigil of Boushie versus the recent Florida shootings demonstrates the problem. The Boushie vigils appealed to some emotional disgust of injustice against Aboriginals uniquely and presents proof of our bias here. The Florida vigil is UNIVERSALLY an emotional disgust because it appeals to everyone's concern, not some race.

While the protest has cooled off, the logical argument is still not being addressed when Trudeau APPEALS to the emotional factors by asserting new changes FOR the Aboriginals uniquely. This makes this political issue here 'culturally biased', not a political appeal to 'rational' differences that is at issue. In fact, if anything, Trudeau and all other politicians should be addressing the ERROR of the Aboriginals to think this case is about racial bias at all. But he and other Canadian politicians WANT laws that are race-based (as with sex-based and religious-based, etc. too). This is my disappointment.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

...We need to redress our constitution in my opinion to remove any cultural, religious, or traditional concepts. We need a form of the American's First Amendment (with better clarity!) to remove government's power to make culture our primary classification when perceiving logical issues.

 

Not going to happen, as this is a principle difference between the two countries....individual rights vs. the collective.   Even when afforded the opportunity to repatriate and update Canada's Constitution Act in 1982, Canada continued a tradition of deference to The Crown and "reasonable" loss of liberty.

[Scott Mayers]

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Not going to happen, as this is a principle difference between the two countries....individual rights vs. the collective.   Even when afforded the opportunity to repatriate and update Canada's Constitution Act in 1982, Canada continued a tradition of deference to The Crown and "reasonable" loss of liberty.

What are we supposed to do then?  ... give up trying? 

If we have to merely accept such factors then it is OPEN for us all to reduce all our logical concerns to race, sex, religious, or in general, "cultural" types of arguments as an appeal. If I want to fight a traffic ticket, I should appeal to the court that the one giving the ticket was of a different race than I am, not to whether I was driving poorly.

Do you think there is any hope? 

 

 

[I am presently trying to seek for a video on a noon-show here in Saskatoon relevant to this case and I discovered that Hedley (the band) was charged with being sexually inappropriate. The JUNOS thus cancelled them from future considerations. This is an example of our fucking arrogance here to think the relevance of something logical (as to the entertainment value of some band) has to take into consideration the behaviors of the band's personal 'culture' apart from this. It should be no surprise that some rock and roll band is going to be partying with inappropriate behavior. How has this any relevance to the virtue of the music?]

[?Impact]

19 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

individual rights vs. the collective

Yes, one wouldn't want to infringe on an individuals right to be mowed down so that the NRA collective can get their rocks off with lead rainbows.

[Scott Mayers]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, one wouldn't want to infringe on an individuals right to be mowed down so that the NRA collective can get their rocks off with lead rainbows.

The 'collective' is incorrect by her interpretation. The 'cult' is more like it. We treat the significant 'individual' as some cultural-defined member, not a sincere individual. The 'collective' is her interpretation that anything left-wing is 'cultural Marxism' (something I take issue with against Jordan Peterson and his fans.) 

[bush_cheney2004]

 

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

What are we supposed to do then?  ... give up trying? 

If we have to merely accept such factors then it is OPEN for us all to reduce all our logical concerns to race, sex, religious, or in general, "cultural" types of arguments as an appeal. If I want to fight a traffic ticket, I should appeal to the court that the one giving the ticket was of a different race than I am, not to whether I was driving poorly.

Do you think there is any hope? 

 

 

Based on Canadian history, there is no reason to believe that a majority of Canadians will "fight" for such a change.   "Peace, order, and good government" are more important to more Canadians than American style liberty (and resulting conflict).    Canada never had a civil rights movement, and the very poor substitute called "multiculturalism" only adds fuel to an existing "aboriginal" fire that has burned for more than 150 years.

Canadians are supposed to just politely grumble under their breath and wait for the next election.

Edited February 16, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Scott Mayers]

17 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

 

Based on Canadian history, there is no reason to believe that a majority of Canadians will "fight" for such a change.   "Peace, order, and good government" are more important to more Canadians than American style liberty (and resulting conflict).    Canada never had a civil rights movement, and the very poor substitute called "multiculturalism" only adds fuel to an existing "aboriginal" fire that has burned for more than 150 years.

Canadians are supposed to just politely grumble under their breath and wait for the next election.

I agree. But I'm asking you if we require giving up? Why are you here? Are you just here to make fun of us? Do you have a functional suggestion (other than the potential fact of our being polite and submissive)? 

[bush_cheney2004]

8 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I agree. But I'm asking you if we require giving up? Why are you here? Are you just here to make fun of us? Do you have a functional suggestion (other than the potential fact of our being polite and submissive)? 

 

I am here only because America seems to play a very prominent role in/for Canada...culturally...economically...militarily...even socially.  Canada voluntarily gorges itself on what happens "in the states"...not sure why.   Many Canadians define their identity as "not American" in an effort to escape this reality.

So even if I were to leave today, America would remain in spades. 

Justin Trudeau said this to an American TV audience on CBS' 60 Minutes:

Quote

...Because you can't be Canadian without being aware of at least one other country, the United States, 'cause it's so important to us. I think we sometimes like to think that, you know, Americans will pay attention to us from time to time, too.

So I'm paying attention....

[Scott Mayers]

Now what is your functional suggestion? What do you think we can or should do to fix this?

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Scott Mayers said:

Now what is your functional suggestion? What do you think we can or should do to fix this?

 

Not for me to say...I certainly wouldn't want another national to prescribe fixes for America's failings.

Generally speaking, continuing the same policies will result in the same outcomes.

Until then, some Canadians who grow frustrated fix this by moving across the border.

 

[Scott Mayers]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Not for me to say...I certainly wouldn't want another national to prescribe fixes for America's failings.

Generally speaking, continuing the same policies will result in the same outcomes.

Until then, some Canadians who grow frustrated fix this by moving across the border.

 

So you really WANT us to immigrate there?  

Why not entice us to be extended 'states' and unite with you instead? 

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

So you really WANT us to immigrate there?  

Why not entice us to be extended 'states' and unite with you instead? 

 

Because that would be just more of the pathetic, malformed Canadian malaise.

I am a nationalist...the U.S. is not a backup plan for Canada's problems.

On a related note, I was amazed to learn that Canada experienced a net loss in population (mostly to the United States) despite the 6 million emigres from the great migrations of the late 19th to mid 20th century.  

[Scott Mayers]

Yes, the 'malaise' that you too like to dwell in here by Canadians. Maybe you need to be expelled from the U.S. for having the same Canadian affliction. I think we infected you.  

[?Impact]

17 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Canada experienced a net loss in population (mostly to the United States) despite the 6 million emigres from the great migrations of the late 19th to mid 20th century.  

I don't understand. Since Confederation there has been a net population growth of between 1%-3% annually. Yes there were some years when it was outside those ranges, like 0.3% in 1916, and 5.2% in 1907 but I am unaware of any net loss. There might have been more emigrants than immigrants some specific year(s), I haven't looked at that level of detail. When you factor in domestic births and deaths I don't think there were any years with a net loss. Prior to Confederation records are harder to interpret, especially when you go a way back and considering that native Canadians were not included in very early census.

Edited February 16, 2018 by ?Impact

[bush_cheney2004]

20 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I don't understand. Since Confederation there has been a net population growth of between 1%-3% annually. Yes there were some years when it was outside those ranges, like 0.3% in 1916, and 5.2% in 1907 but I am unaware of any net loss. There might have been more emigrants than immigrants some specific year(s), I haven't looked at that level of detail. When you factor in domestic births and deaths I don't think there were any years with a net loss. Prior to Confederation records are harder to interpret, especially when you go a way back and considering that native Canadians were not included in very early census.

 

Understand this:  Canada experienced a net population loss during the 1930's because of the Great Depression:

Quote

In fact, the largest Canadian migration story of the years between Laurier and the end of the Second World War did not involve immigration from abroad but rather emigration to the United States. Once again, but this time at an even greater cost, Canada lost population. Both countries boomed ... It would get even worse in the 1930s, when the number of Canadians who departed for the United States greatly exceeded the number of immigrants who came to Canada.

https://books.google.com/books?id=J0bKDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA91&dq=when+Canada+lost+population+1930's&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9wYDJ76nZAhUOxmMKHYHRBCQQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=when Canada lost population 1930's&f=false

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Canada experienced a net population loss during the 1930's because of the Great Depression:

Well I am not sure where that author gets his information, but according to census records kept by Statistics Canada the lowest growth year between 1920 & 1940 was 1937 with a net population increase of 0.9%. Perhaps he is only considering emigration and immigration and not domestic population growth.

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Well I am not sure where that author gets his information, but according to census records kept by Statistics Canada the lowest growth year between 1920 & 1940 was 1937 with a net population increase of 0.9%. Perhaps he is only considering emigration and immigration and not domestic population growth.

 

Whether Canada lost population or not, the main point is that Canada did not sustain expected population growth from immigration because so many immigrants and subjects left the country (most went to the United States).   So after the biggest human migration in history from Europe, Canada had little to show for it in net population gain. 

 

[betsy]

Here's what CBC says.

 

Quote

Eric Meechance, who was in the SUV with Boushie the day of the shooting, testified in court that he tried to start an ATV on Stanley's property but denied trying to steal it.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/colten-boushie-allegations-facebook-rcmp-1.4536830

 

 

Why on earth would you try to start the ATV on someone's property  without asking for permission?

 

Furthermore, they tried to break into a truck in another place prior to that.

 

Quote

On the way back to the reserve, the group got a flat tire.   They ended up at the ranch of Marvin and Glennis Fouhy in the district of Spinney Hill, northeast of the Stanley farm. Cross-Whitstone admitted to trying to break into a truck there.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/what-happened-stanley-farm-boushie-shot-witnesses-colten-gerald-1.4520214

 

 

Before Meechance tried to start the ATV,  someone got into a Ford truck in Stanley's property.

 

 

Quote

 

Cross-Whitstone didn't know it, but Gerald was also a part-time mechanic, fixing up the vehicles of people who live in the area and even people coming off the road.

Gerald and Sheldon both saw someone from the SUV go into a gold Ford truck parked in the yard by a customer. 

"We didn't really think anything of it," recalled Sheldon, thinking it was one of his father's customers. 

 

Both Stanleys saw the SUV make its way toward the shop and someone get out and climb aboard an ATV. Sheldon Stanley hollered at the person. 

Boushie remained in the back of the SUV along with Wuttunee and Jackson, according to Whitstone.

 

 

"As soon as we heard the quad start, I started running," Sheldon Stanley testified in court. 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/what-happened-stanley-farm-boushie-shot-witnesses-colten-gerald-1.4520214

 

 

Trudeau - and all the ministers who spoke out - are indeed interfering with justice.

  They are prejudiced against Stanley -  casting an automatic  judgment that the shooting was racially-based because Stanley is a white person!  

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by betsy

[?Impact]

32 minutes ago, betsy said:

Why on earth would you try to start the ATV on someone's property  without asking for permission?

Furthermore, they tried to break into a truck in another place prior to that.

Before Meechance tried to start the ATV,  someone got into a Ford truck in Stanley's property.

Good facts and questions

 

35 minutes ago, betsy said:

Trudeau - and all the ministers who spoke out - are indeed interfering with justice.

  They are prejudiced against Stanley -  casting an automatic  judgment that the shooting was racially-based because Stanley is a white person!  

Complete hogwash. Nobody is prejudiced against Stanley, that is abundantly clear. Go back to the facts, what exactly did these people allegedly say that is obstructing justice in your opinion? You have provided zero facts or good questions in this section. You are doing the equivalent of ignoring facts and saying Stanley is guilty or innocent - period.