China corrupting Chinese immigrants in Canada

[Dougie93]

But the Supreme Court of Canada rendered all that moot when by judgement they disavowed any particular requirement of allegiance to Canada.

Some Israeli professor wanted a Canadian passport, but not the Queen, nor the Gospel of Jesus, and so he sued Canada, and he won. 

Which changed the constitution on the spot; SCC ruling

[Scott Mayers]

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

In ethno-racially defined societies, which overwhelmingly represent the places from which Canada now receives immigrants, tribalism remains a predominant cultural and political principle. The major Immigrant receiving post-colonial countries, like the U.S., Canada and Australia, however, function according to a different principle, which, for lack of a better term, is assimilation. Those who assimilate do not "lack power of cohesion" as you argue, but instead become empowered as fully engaged participants in their adopted societies. It is those who don't assimilate and remain attached only to their tribal roots and diaspora communities who become insignificantly trivial and marginalized within the general population.

 The U.S. (and France before them) embraced Republicanism in light of the means of which a Monarchy logically entices segregation by their nature of distinction: peoples in power are considered as being in favor by nature because of their genetic decrees and beliefs about how some God uniquely favored them. That's ethno-centric by FIAT for being Kings and Queens or loyalists to their supremacy.

[Argus]

55 minutes ago, turningrite said:

It's my understanding that the rather crude term "Cuck" is contemptuously applied by the some on the right to servile men who espouse mainly moderate or progressive views. I've heard Trudeau described as such but have never seen or heard a conservative, moderate or otherwise, described as such.

Who it gets applied to depends on how extreme the person is applying the term.

[Scott Mayers]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

The only thing anyone is bound to assimilate to is the law, the rule of law is the only stipulated culture, it is folly to try to impose any further assimilation, because you will discover that you do not have the Crown behind you.   If you kick up a ruckus about it, you will be in breach of the Queen's Peace.  If you persist, the riot act shall be read, and then the Crown bops you upside the head.  If that doesn't work, the penitentiary then.

Please define what I underlined of your words. To me this is circular: a 'rule' is a 'law'. HOW, taking it to mean "ruled by law", for the verbal meaning does this phrase differ from any other governing body, including company bylaws? "Queen's Peace"? ...==..."God-granted supreme being's wisdom to know what is or is not 'peace' by how you respect her authority?"

[turningrite]

6 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

We are ethno-nationalists though....

 

In comparison to what other countries? People who engage in racialist diatribes like that in your post often seem to think that the rest of the world is some kind of tolerant paradise in comparison to despotic old Canada. And yet, objective international surveys routinely place Canada among the world's most racially and culturally tolerant countries. Yes, we have a past. What country doesn't? But the BNA Act, which references the British and French "privileges" you so abhor, was enacted in 1867 when people of these backgrounds formed a huge majority of the European-Canadian population. And indigenous rights actually predate the BNA Act, emerging from the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which is now formally written into the constitution. Perhaps it would be nice to live in a country without a history of any kind, although I don't know where you'll find such a paradise. But Canada is probably one of the few countries where history plays a relatively minor role in the day-to-day relationships between people.

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Please define what I underlined of your words. To me this is circular: a 'rule' is a 'law'. HOW, taking it to mean "ruled by law", for the verbal meaning does this phrase differ from any other governing body, including company bylaws? "Queen's Peace"? ...==..."God-granted supreme being's wisdom to know what is or is not 'peace' by how you respect her authority?"

In broad strokes, the rule of British law in the modern context begins with the Peace of Westphalia 1648, then the Glorious Revolution 1688, Canadian constitutional law begins at the Treaty of Paris 1763, followed by the British North America Acts,  then Repatriation and associated Enshrining of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[turningrite]

10 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

 The U.S. (and France before them) embraced Republicanism in light of the means of which a Monarchy logically entices segregation by their nature of distinction: peoples in power are considered as being in favor by nature because of their genetic decrees and beliefs about how some God uniquely favored them. That's ethno-centric by FIAT for being Kings and Queens or loyalists to their supremacy.

And in the real world, in 2019 all of this means precisely bupkis. All Western democracies, whether Republics or constitutional monarchies, operate on very similar principles that largely emerge from Enlightenment-era values that negate the practical impact of any kind of "God" - or other supernatural entity. The road to representative democracy hasn't always been smooth, and the result isn't always perfect but, as Winston Churchill is reputed to have pointed out, "it's the worst form of government, except for all the others." To employ a time-worn cliche, don't be too quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[QuebecOverCanada]

If Trudeau were a real leader, he would have already closed the embassy and prepare for tariffs and sanctions against China until they behave like a normal, civilized country.

They are taking us for a ride and deserve every bit of misery we can inflict on them. The Chinese are not our friends and never have been, despite Trudeau's praise of the regime in the past. 

 

 

[Dougie93]

9 minutes ago, turningrite said:

And in the real world, in 2019 all of this means precisely bupkis. All Western democracies, whether Republics or constitutional monarchies, operate on very similar principles that largely emerge from Enlightenment-era values that negate the practical impact of any kind of "God" - or other supernatural entity. The road to representative democracy hasn't always been smooth, and the result isn't always perfect but, as Winston Churchill is reputed to have pointed out, "it's the worst form of government, except for all the others." To employ a time-worn cliche, don't be too quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Canada however is simply a Domestic Self Governing Federation of the British Empire.  

Dieu et mon droit is not the motto of Canadian Confederation.

The motto of the DSGF is; Mari usque ad Mare. 

No mention of the God of the Hebrews therein.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Dougie93

[QuebecOverCanada]

43 minutes ago, Rue said:

By the time this forum and Trudeau is done we will have to hold in detention all Chinese, Muslims, and I would think people from Kyrgyzstan.

We did that to the Japanese and Italians in WW2. I have nothing wrong with that policy in case of an intensification of the current diplomatic/trade war we have with them until we can figure out what the Chinese are doing here and what we can do about it.

[QuebecOverCanada]

By the way, the Chinese are about to execute a Canadian in the coming days. Because we apply our law on our land.

Where is Trudeau's response? Where is the retaliation?

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

We did that to the Japanese and Italians in WW2. I have nothing wrong with that policy in case of an intensification of the current diplomatic/trade war we have with them until we can figure out what the Chinese are doing here and what we can do about it.

The law under which that was conducted was the War Measures Act, which was repealed by the Liberals in 1988. 

Replaced by the Emergencies Act, which cannot be invoked in contravention of the Charter,  Section 1, which cannot be overruled by Section 33.

[QuebecOverCanada]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

The law under which that was conducted was the War Measures Act, which was repealed by the Liberals in 1988. 

Replaced by the Emergencies Act, which cannot be invoked in contravention of the Charter,  Section 1, which cannot be overruled by Section 33.

Cool.

But in Québec, we didn't sign the Constitution. It's time to separate for good when I see this type of garbage that prevents Canada from being able to be a country.

[Scott Mayers]

3 minutes ago, turningrite said:

In comparison to what other countries? People who engage in racialist diatribes like that in your post often seem to think that the rest of the world is some kind of tolerant paradise in comparison to despotic old Canada. And yet, objective international surveys routinely place Canada among the world's most racially and culturally tolerant countries. Yes, we have a past. What country doesn't? But the BNA Act, which references the British and French "privileges" you so abhor, was enacted in 1867 when people of these backgrounds formed a huge majority of the European-Canadian population. And indigenous rights actually predate the BNA Act, emerging from the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which is now formally written into the constitution. Perhaps it would be nice to live in a country without a history of any kind, although I don't know where you'll find such a paradise. But Canada is probably one of the few countries where history plays a relatively minor role in the day-to-day relationships between people.

I speak in reference to the 'letter of the law' to which terms like "rule of law" beg with lack of clarity. We are temporarily better off simply because we still have surplus of natural resources. Just as some very wealthy Middle Eastern kingdoms, like Dubai, can act benevolent to its people, we are relatively still better off NOW. But the concern is to both the future and to those now who suffer within our present society who lack cult associations. 

Our Constitution, though, IS a legal writing that while not yet understood by all, has within it means to lay in preservation for select people only, not all of us. Note that I'm NOT conservative and while unusual on the left, I argue that the 'conservative' mindset is stronger today in groups associated with cultural interests in any political persuasion. Today's problems are due mostly to the very left-wing dominance of multiple cultures of distinct preferences that agree in temporal acceptance only to use the power of collective groups to overrule the same thinkers on the normal right-wing. The difference is only to how power still consolidates in groups based on arrogant cultural purity. 

And just because the average groups of this nature today are 'secular' appearing, they still utilize their style of rhetoric to appear less threatening than they really are. We are in a cyclic part of history where the past abused groups  attempt to alter only who is the ones in power to abuse next, and to those in power fearing the loss of it in light of their abuse and so act as though they are the apologetic benevolent people trying to right the(ir) wrongs but by passing the debt to the universally whole class of today's people. 

We are intrinsically MORE conservative yet appear the opposite by the means of deliberate manipulation. We prefer ETIQUETTE to direct honesty and why we have someone like Trump in power in the U.S. .....people are sick and tired of the more clever and manipulative means of politicians to utilize the appearance of kindness and lovability but be adept at redirection of accountability.

[Scott Mayers]

21 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

In broad strokes, the rule of British law in the modern context begins with the Peace of Westphalia 1648, then the Glorious Revolution 1688, Canadian constitutional law begins at the Treaty of Paris 1763, followed by the British North America Acts,  then Repatriation and associated Enshrining of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Now, please explain the logical meaning of "rule of law". This is a history, not a definition.

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Cool.

But in Québec, we didn't sign the Constitution. It's time to separate for good when I see this type of garbage that prevents Canada from being able to be a country.

True enough, Quebec is not even in Confederation anymore, I both recognize and affirm that Quebec is simply taking bribes to not formally declare independence at the UN fait accompli

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Now, please explain the logical meaning of "rule of law". This is a history, not a definition.

The restriction of arbitrary rule by way of clearly defined and established laws.

[QuebecOverCanada]

17 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

True enough, Quebec is not even in Confederation anymore, I both recognize and affirm that Quebec is simply taking bribes to not formally declare independence at the UN fait accompli

I find it incredible that despite globalization, so many differences arise between provinces at an even greater proportion than before I find. Even Alberta and Ontario have two very different mentalities despite sharing the same language and nationality, although some Albertans now want to separate because we basically live off from their money. We're basically rubbing robbing everyone in Canada at an incredible rate.

Edited January 28, 2019 by QuebecOverCanada

[Scott Mayers]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

The restriction of arbitrary rule by way of clearly defined and established laws.

See this is the confusion. Which laws are considered clearly defined versus open-to-interpretation? I understood Quebec's use of civil law was more like this as it codifies whereas the use of 'common law' is interpretative upon cases. Which laws is being referred to regarding this "rule of law"? I was taking the literal interpretation of the laws as written as a threat while they are today only being treated as 'loose' and open to interpretation. That a law that first says, "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law"... makes what follows via our 'right' to a freedom of conscience, contradictory if 'conscience' includes one who believes morality is derived by the men who make laws. It is only 'clear' if we interpret this to mean we are only free where we don't impose upon the favored people in Constitutional protection's right to segregate laws that selectively favor their own yet grant us the mere freedom to think differently (but not act on it).

[Scott Mayers]

To link back to the topic, our constitution favors countries like China to utilize a means to infiltrate North America by the very contradictions lacking clarity in our laws. Are we universally favorable to all cultures....in the meaning of Multiculturalism? ...or just selectively favorable by the interpretation granted to us through the founding cultures? China, as with other nationalist-interested groups are rationally going to be most attracted to our system simply based upon the confusion.

[Dougie93]

13 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

See this is the confusion. Which laws are considered clearly defined versus open-to-interpretation? I understood Quebec's use of civil law was more like this as it codifies whereas the use of 'common law' is interpretative upon cases. Which laws is being referred to regarding this "rule of law"? I was taking the literal interpretation of the laws as written as a threat while they are today only being treated as 'loose' and open to interpretation. That a law that first says, "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law"... makes what follows via our 'right' to a freedom of conscience, contradictory if 'conscience' includes one who believes morality is derived by the men who make laws. It is only 'clear' if we interpret this to mean we are only free where we don't impose upon the favored people in Constitutional protection's right to segregate laws that selectively favor their own yet grant us the mere freedom to think differently (but not act on it).

Well, by the Peace of Westphalia as I aforementioned.  law which is not defended and upheld by sovereign force of arms is void by default, but Westminster Parliamentary Supremacy and associated British Crown is defended and upheld by some considerable amount of force, up to and including a Joint Strategic Deterrent at 15 minutes notice to launch on warning.

 

[Scott Mayers]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Well, by the Peace of Westphalia as I aforementioned.  law which is not defended and upheld by sovereign force of arms is void by default, but Westminster Parliamentary Supremacy and associated British Crown is defended and upheld by some considerable amount of force, up to and including a Joint Strategic Deterrent at 15 minutes notice to launch on warning.

 

The language itself is purposefully obscure. The word, "sovereign", itself only has most significant meaning to the religious-thinking believers in a state backed by some claimed existence of a God who grants a magical spell that places some invisible bubble upon some land and/or people. In effect, its purpose was more likely to have kings and queens collude to agree to each other's preservation in light of a world that was giving way to democracy. The idea they were likely thinking was to conserve their kingdom's ownership and gains among each other by granting a pretense of power to the "commoners" by using a lower governing body to exist that 'handles' them. Give the commoners the means to complain is often sufficient to nullify their need to feel a sense of control over their own destiny even though they are being lead. It's the same con that some of today's companies use by providing consumers the power to complain, even if the intent is not to read actually read them. [Celebrities use this tactic to a great effect too to nullify their fans.]

This form of 'democracy' was incomplete and why the revolutions of the 1600's in places like France and the American colonies challenged them. 

[Dougie93]

28 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

To link back to the topic, our constitution favors countries like China to utilize a means to infiltrate North America by the very contradictions lacking clarity in our laws. Are we universally favorable to all cultures....in the meaning of Multiculturalism? ...or just selectively favorable by the interpretation granted to us through the founding cultures? China, as with other nationalist-interested groups are rationally going to be most attracted to our system simply based upon the confusion.

Infiltrate to do what tho?   Infiltration implies attack, what are they attacking? 

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

The language itself is purposefully obscure. The word, "sovereign", itself only has most significant meaning to the religious-thinking believers in a state backed by some claimed existence of a God who grants a magical spell that places some invisible bubble upon some land and/or people. In effect, its purpose was more likely to have kings and queens collude to agree to each other's preservation in light of a world that was giving way to democracy. The idea they were likely thinking was to conserve their kingdom's ownership and gains among each other by granting a pretense of power to the "commoners" by using a lower governing body to exist that 'handles' them. Give the commoners the means to complain is often sufficient to nullify their need to feel a sense of control over their own destiny even though they are being lead. It's the same con that some of today's companies use by providing consumers the power to complain, even if the intent is not to read actually read them. [Celebrities use this tactic to a great effect too to nullify their fans.]

This form of 'democracy' was incomplete and why the revolutions of the 1600's in places like France and the American colonies challenged them. 

Indeed, Dieu et mon droit is the God of the Hebrews,  the Declaration of Independence is by deist Creator, none the less, any challenges to either will be met with appropriate force beginning at the threshold of the North Atlantic Security Zone, in the case of Canada, Western Approaches.

Edited January 28, 2019 by Dougie93

[Scott Mayers]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

Infiltrate to do what tho?   Infiltration implies attack, what are they attacking? 

Infiltrate: enter or gain access to (an organization, place, etc.) surreptitiously and gradually, especially in order to acquire secret information, power, etc.