Preamble to Charter of Rights....

[Scott Mayers]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

1) You say that you don't hate the religion/religious persons who created the Charter, and then you tell lies to make other people fear them. What could possibly prove/disprove your level of affection for something than the types of lies you tell about it? Actions speak louder than words. Get it?

Are you saying that you've stopped raping your children? 

First establish that I lied before you expect me to defend it or  prove that you are no longer a rapist.  What could possibly prove/disprove your level of emotional interest in responding to me unless you are trying to make us look away from your deviantly incestous behavior.

[Your rhetoric won't pass me unchallenged. ]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

2) I thought that you despised the fact that indigenous people have reservations. You talked about reservations as though they are prisons for indigenous people. Now you hate the fact that they have 'distinct status', which is a significant part of the whole 'reservation' concept. Which is it? 

Yes, reservations are not good BECAUSE they isolate ,distinctly, specific people based upon genetic descriptions. So making them 'distinct' officially only  seals the racism by attempting to encoursage Natives to EMBRACE it in kind.

.HOW are you seeing something conflicting here? 

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

3) Indigenous people, and people of all religious affiliations or lack thereof, get all the protections in the Charter of rights. Period. The indigenous people get more say in what happens on their own land. That's it.

Indigenous people were reserved general lands to live the prior hunting and gathering lifestyle of their ancestors. The theft was taken by those who believed in PRIVATE PROPERTY. As such, to the newcomers from Europe, the Natives didn't have a concept of ownership or were thought not to be able to adapt quick enough. 

I actually am not a fan of unlimited ownership rights, NOR do I own such properties myself. Where I am born is then as much one in which I 'float' in the same kind of wandering lifestyle I didn't choose. To say whether they have a right as INDIVIDUALS to own is alright. But the existing Aboriginal peoples today if treated as a 'cult' biases them to THINK in one common way based merely upon their genetic roots and IS itself a racist perception of them. 

I am born with 'Caucasian' blood. Do I own something 'Caucasian' as a cult? NO **(though this is imposed upon me by proxy)

X is born with Native blood. Does X own something that is 'Native' as a cult? YES (our present official claims I disapprove of)

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

This fundamental ideal that all people get all the protections of the Charter, Constitution, etc is the main reason why, for example, foreign laws which discriminate against women can never be part of the Canadian legal system. Girls are born with the same rights to property, inheritance, divorce, etc that boys have and no other system of law can contradict that. 

I am presently arguing to dismantle to preamble precisely because its presence 'officiates' what follows as true. For the protections to be EQUAL requires no special status for DISTINCTION. "Equal status" is opposite "Distinct status". I'm against defining GROUPS of genetically associated people as 'owning' some common environmental behavior. Your faith that the preamble is not to be taken literal or is trivial, is like demanding people blindly trust that the words of an official agreement they are forced to sign as non-binding in practice. That preamble assures that what follows is NOT universal to grant EQUAL rights to people but to create UNEQUAL rights based upon faulty beliefs about things like race and sex.

Edited January 5, 2020 by Scott Mayers
Addition at **

[Marocc]

2 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Employment incentives defined with priority to be given to those minorities

Employment incentives? Is that the same as employee incentive? Like bonuses? Verbal encouragement? Gifts?

If any such incentive makes some privileged compared to others it is the fault of the employer. And no, the white

male is not always at the end of the list of priorities.
 

[Marocc]

2 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

to create UNEQUAL rights based upon faulty beliefs about things like race and sex.

Where did it do that?

You can't take God out of the societies. You can want to, but you can't do it.

a religious person can cite you their holy text to show they are doing right and an atheist can cite you scientific tests and history to show they are doing right. But to find out whether they're doing right or not, you have to first hear what is it they are doing. Study the Constitution. When you have found the faults in it, make a report and send it to someone important, or publish it in the paper. You haven't found a fault. You have found what you suspect automatically should lead to problems.

[Scott Mayers]

2 hours ago, Marocc said:

Employment incentives? Is that the same as employee incentive? Like bonuses? Verbal encouragement? Gifts?

If any such incentive makes some privileged compared to others it is the fault of the employer. And no, the white

male is not always at the end of the list of priorities.
 

No. Government money used to help the poor get jobs in entry level positions. The cost the government pays would be to any training costs, tools, and for some time period, like a year, say, in which any employer only requires paying a part of the wage. So, for instance, if it is a construction type job grant, they will help those in the program/project by providing any essential skill training for basic skills on the job that most normally get by long years of experience. They would get a tool kit, something that others in better economic conditions get from family and their connections, etc.  The employer benefits for whomever they hire regardless by either paying only some to no part of the employees wages.

Such projects are good ideas. But they bias their utility FOR minorities defined upon cultural-genetic lines. 

Does this help clarify the issue? 

Can you see how government programs that do this in a community with large impovershment issues create DIVISION of the races by merely favoring the race on 'cultural' accomodations rather than common economic grounds of the individual? If you are of the race that is most represented at the top, while those at the top may have gotten and remain there for actual possible racism/sexism, how are those at the bottom with the same racial/sexual association to wealth make them liable?

Edited January 5, 2020 by Scott Mayers

[Scott Mayers]

2 hours ago, Marocc said:

Where did it do that?

You can't take God out of the societies. You can want to, but you can't do it.

a religious person can cite you their holy text to show they are doing right and an atheist can cite you scientific tests and history to show they are doing right. But to find out whether they're doing right or not, you have to first hear what is it they are doing. Study the Constitution. When you have found the faults in it, make a report and send it to someone important, or publish it in the paper. You haven't found a fault. You have found what you suspect automatically should lead to problems.

Why do you keep presuming that taking out religious/cultural based laws are equivalent to destroying ones personal choice to be religious outside of government concerns. 

My effort HERE is a sample DOING SOMETHING. All I can do is to state and argue my opinions. And for this thread, I argue that we need to remove the preamble because it preconditions the rest of it for actual biased laws within it. You act as though I'm asking to replace the preamble with something like, 

"In that we recognize the supremacy of the Athiest (above all others):" 

I want it removed or replaced to not speak of favoring some cultural bias. I'll try to think of a different example remote from this particular preamble that might be easier to follow. I know that if you are religious, you cannot relate to not being religious in some minimal way without being devoid of morality. This is not true though and may be what you need to grasp first. (?)

[WestCanMan]

20 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Are you saying that you've stopped raping your children? 

First establish that I lied before you expect me to defend it or  prove that you are no longer a rapist.  What could possibly prove/disprove your level of emotional interest in responding to me unless you are trying to make us look away from your deviantly incestous behavior.

[Your rhetoric won't pass me unchallenged. ]

I already proved that you were lying, and your last resort is an ad hominem attack. Nice try liar.

Quote

Yes, reservations are not good BECAUSE they isolate ,distinctly, specific people based upon genetic descriptions. So making them 'distinct' officially only  seals the racism by attempting to encoursage Natives to EMBRACE it in kind.

.HOW are you seeing something conflicting here? 

Indigenous people were reserved general lands to live the prior hunting and gathering lifestyle of their ancestors. The theft was taken by those who believed in PRIVATE PROPERTY. As such, to the newcomers from Europe, the Natives didn't have a concept of ownership or were thought not to be able to adapt quick enough. 

1) Reservations are there so that people who want to preserve their ways have enough land set aside to do so. It takes a vast area for humans to survive without farming.

2) Indigenous people don't have to stay there at all if they don't want to. They are all free to leave at any time. 

3) It's a conflict because you act like reservations are a bad idea but you're also offended by rights that indigenous people have as a result of living on reservations. If they didn't want the reservations they'd get rid of them. Idiot.

4) go find some land somewhere that is only occupied by "indigenous" people of that area. There's no such place.

Quote

I actually am not a fan of unlimited ownership rights, NOR do I own such properties myself. Where I am born is then as much one in which I 'float' in the same kind of wandering lifestyle I didn't choose. To say whether they have a right as INDIVIDUALS to own is alright. But the existing Aboriginal peoples today if treated as a 'cult' biases them to THINK in one common way based merely upon their genetic roots and IS itself a racist perception of them. 

I am born with 'Caucasian' blood. Do I own something 'Caucasian' as a cult? NO **(though this is imposed upon me by proxy)

X is born with Native blood. Does X own something that is 'Native' as a cult? YES (our present official claims I disapprove of)

I am presently arguing to dismantle to preamble precisely because its presence 'officiates' what follows as true. For the protections to be EQUAL requires no special status for DISTINCTION. "Equal status" is opposite "Distinct status". I'm against defining GROUPS of genetically associated people as 'owning' some common environmental behavior. Your faith that the preamble is not to be taken literal or is trivial, is like demanding people blindly trust that the words of an official agreement they are forced to sign as non-binding in practice. That preamble assures that what follows is NOT universal to grant EQUAL rights to people but to create UNEQUAL rights based upon faulty beliefs about things like race and sex.

If you find something in the preamble with legal ramifications which give a group special status let me know. Until then it's just you, your current pack of lies, and not much else.

[Scott Mayers]

23 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

On 1/4/2020 at 6:22 PM, Scott Mayers said:

Are you saying that you've stopped raping your children? 

First establish that I lied before you expect me to defend it or  prove that you are no longer a rapist.  What could possibly prove/disprove your level of emotional interest in responding to me unless you are trying to make us look away from your deviantly incestous behavior.

[Your rhetoric won't pass me unchallenged. ]

I already proved that you were lying, and your last resort is an ad hominem attack. Nice try liar.

Where is this supposed 'proved'? The ad hominem is yours unless you provide your explanation of this charge.

 

23 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Quote

Yes, reservations are not good BECAUSE they isolate ,distinctly, specific people based upon genetic descriptions. So making them 'distinct' officially only  seals the racism by attempting to encoursage Natives to EMBRACE it in kind.

.HOW are you seeing something conflicting here? 

Indigenous people were reserved general lands to live the prior hunting and gathering lifestyle of their ancestors. The theft was taken by those who believed in PRIVATE PROPERTY. As such, to the newcomers from Europe, the Natives didn't have a concept of ownership or were thought not to be able to adapt quick enough. 

1) Reservations are there so that people who want to preserve their ways have enough land set aside to do so. It takes a vast area for humans to survive without farming.

2) Indigenous people don't have to stay there at all if they don't want to. They are all free to leave at any time. 

3) It's a conflict because you act like reservations are a bad idea but you're also offended by rights that indigenous people have as a result of living on reservations. If they didn't want the reservations they'd get rid of them. Idiot.

4) go find some land somewhere that is only occupied by "indigenous" people of that area. There's no such place.

I clearly understand what the reserves were for. They and any perpetuity of the Natives as a  distinct people(s) are racist for those initial THEFTS of the European lands are all theirs otherwise. That is, IF you accept that the Europeans stole the land (a 'theft' in todays terms), any 'reserving' of something  set aside for them as a whole class of species apart from all other humans is only distinguishable by their racial identity. 

Your confusion of the issue has to be about something you interpret differently in your own head. But lets look at your list points. 

For your (1), yes, they are set aside to preserve 'ways' but not for 'farming' as anything essential because the governments were offering free prime quality lands for farming to new coming Europeans. If the gesture was done due to seeing the Natives as equal human beings, why were they lumped together distinctly from the beginning rather than offered the formal 'ownerships' given away to strangers yet to come? 

The reason for the problems back then were due to a difference in STAGE OF SETTLEMENT EVOLUTION ('civilization' is the act of 'settling' rather than 'wandering' via hunting and gathering stages).  This hunting and gathering stage (not a 'culture') was something we all go through. So any MODERN version of 'tribalism' that links people to something GENETIC rather  than by VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION is "Nationalism" (from the old world meaning as in Germany's meaning in the World War era), or "Facism" if referencing the act of gaining strength by collecting together as Nations (ie First Nations) withing or apart from others to gain strength in their unitity.

For (2), the 'choice' was non-existent as in the distinct offering of free lands to new comers from Natives as mentioned AND the fact that they lacked a fair means to communicate in a shared language. Given they were isolated AND initially without even the capability to integrate, this 'choice' was like one assuming of the victims of the most abusive people who successfully isolate them as completely their OWN faults. It is also like stating that one can freely own a Rolls Royce simply for wanting it regardless of your relative poverty. While the potential to buy exists to anyone equally affording it, this doesn't mean that one's willpower suffices to achieving it. It is furthermore extreme in example when you consider that not even their collective power sufficed as a whole to afford such choices. That tells you how EACH individual within those tribes confined to reserves lack the power to simply leave. 

Isolation is also about separating one's capacity to communicate with others. Thus the 'cultural' imposition today to grant a genetically related Aboriginal to embrace a separate language that was already dying out by normal evolution as they integrate acts as supporting proof of how such laws about culture/religion are abusively racist TODAY.

Now to your (3) regarding your own belief that Natives CHOOSING a virtue of Reservations. You said, "If they didn't want the reservations they'd get rid of them. Idiot." But I just presented the point about isolation as a mechanism of abuse. Maybe you may think of this before you re-respond if you choose. 

The nature of isolation due to the Reserve creations lock them into their condition. And when you have children within this abusive context, the children are further abused by being unable to COMPETE with modern society equally as other non-Aboriginals. YET, we now have a Constitution and supporting governments (and parties) who think it appropriate to encourage isolation by dividing them from all others under the incentives to foster distinct status and puritanical cultural thinking. 

And finally, your (4) which is confusing for not knowing what you considered 'occupied'. If considering ALL of Canada, all lands are 'occupied'. But "Reservations" are formally theirs. Any extended problems due to things like encroachments upon those lands by altering their landscape for minerals, forest, or other prime industries and business exploits are not relevant. 

 

If I were you, I'd step back from presuming something about me as being irrationally biased on this. I only gave the recent example of a problematic case that happens to have involved the Aboriginal communities collectively battling a FREE SPEECH issue. I can point to many other simillar issues of today but was pointing out an immediate news story here in Saskatchewan as an EXAMPLE of the resulting bias that begins with our country lacking complete protection of all people that BEGINS with that preamble's existance.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Scott Mayers
Replace a word. An "is" was supposed to be "in".

[Scott Mayers]

23 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

If you find something in the preamble with legal ramifications which give a group special status let me know. Until then it's just you, your current pack of lies, and not much else.

You moved up to "current pack of lies" now?  Given my freedom to speak on this one major issue as pivotal to favoring SPECIFIC religious concepts and their protections, it is understandable that many of YOU in such favored positions are NOT going to like any potential success I have for speaking against it. Thus, you are appearing to seek flaw with me as a person because you can't compete on the rational discussion. 

LOGICAL PARADOX QUESTION:  If I called you a 'liar' whether you were or not, would you be able to prove that you are NOT? 

[WestCanMan]

35 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Where is this supposed 'proved'? The ad hominem is yours unless you provide your explanation of this charge.

I already explained to you how the english language works, and how the preamble would need to worded in order for it to have any legal effect. If you don't understand that then you're just in over your head.

I can't make you understand the language any more than I can teach an ant calculus.

You don't get to go around making ridiculous accusations just because you were proven to be woefully wrong, or lying.

[WestCanMan]

36 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

You moved up to "current pack of lies" now?  Given my freedom to speak on this one major issue as pivotal to favoring SPECIFIC religious concepts and their protections, it is understandable that many of YOU in such favored positions are NOT going to like any potential success I have for speaking against it. Thus, you are appearing to seek flaw with me as a person because you can't compete on the rational discussion. 

LOGICAL PARADOX QUESTION:  If I called you a 'liar' whether you were or not, would you be able to prove that you are NOT? 

I didn't move at all. I said that you're a liar, you have a pack of lies, same diff. If you don't like it then start telling the truth ffs.

I didn't make a vague accusation. I made a specific accusation which you're free to copy and paste if you'd like. It's still there. You have the option to make your case.

You might not actually be a liar, but it's extremely unlikely that a person with your command of the english language is unable to interpret the preamble with far greater accuracy than you have done here. So, I'l backtrack a bit, and say that what you said is completely untrue and the only possible explanation, as far as I can see, is that you'r lying.

 

[Scott Mayers]

59 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I didn't move at all. I said that you're a liar, you have a pack of lies, same diff. If you don't like it then start telling the truth ffs.

I didn't make a vague accusation. I made a specific accusation which you're free to copy and paste if you'd like. It's still there. You have the option to make your case.

You might not actually be a liar, but it's extremely unlikely that a person with your command of the english language is unable to interpret the preamble with far greater accuracy than you have done here. So, I'l backtrack a bit, and say that what you said is completely untrue and the only possible explanation, as far as I can see, is that you'r lying.

You're trolling now. 

I heard your opinion of me as a 'liar' in unspecied  universality and now expect that you have nothing further to add here, right? (Don't answer that. It's not a question.) Bye now.

[Scott Mayers]

As for another related example in which presents the bias by some thinking athiesm is a religion presumed 'protected' equally under the law, some athiests had recently challenged a court decision to permit them setting up a formal 'Athiest Church'. I'm personally not wanting this as I believe in the harder battle to rid the religious law making permitted in the Constitution altogether. But I learned that they were turned down. This demonstrates how SPECIAL privilege is granted to the God-cult. 

[Edit: I happen to recognize the court's decision correct as our constitution biases the power of the specific privileged religions within it. This is proof of its bias against the athiest.]

Quote

Church of Atheism Denied

Leslie Rosenblood

 

All Canadian charities must declare their primary purpose when they register with the Canada Revenue Agency; approximately 40 percent of Canadian charities exist for the “advancement of religion.”

 

The Church of Atheism of Central Canada applied for charitable status under the “advancement of religion” category. Its request was denied by the CRA, and this decision was upheld by the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal. It is possible this will go to the Supreme Court, but that remains to be seen.

 

The core of the decision is: “Fundamental characteristics of religion include that the followers have a faith in a higher power such as God, entity, or Supreme Being; that followers worship this higher power; and that the religion consists of a particular and comprehensive system of faith and worship.” The Church of Atheism of Central Canada lacks belief in a deity, and therefore cannot revere a Supreme Being, and does not have a system of worship, according to the Court. (That Buddhism is eligible for charitable status while also lacking belief in a God failed to persuade the Court that the Church of Atheism should also be considered a religion for charitable purposes.)

 

The Court also stated that charitable registration is a privilege, not a right, so no Charter considerations come into play.

 

Mark Blumberg, a lawyer specializing in charity law, writes, “Ultimately the courts are not planning on changing the status quo ‘In the absence of legislative reform.’” This is likely a correct prediction. In my opinion, removing “Advancement of Religion” as a criterion sufficient to gain charitable status is preferable to including atheism within the definition of religious belief and practice.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Scott Mayers
Cannot format the quote with a following statement without it placing it IN the quote

[eyeball]

On 1/4/2020 at 12:03 PM, WestCanMan said:

3) Indigenous people, and people of all religious affiliations or lack thereof, get all the protections in the Charter of rights. Period. The indigenous people get more say in what happens on their own land. That's it.

That's not correct where I live in BC.  1st Nations governments here had as much or more say than local non-native governments when it came to the disposition of a light-house and the Federal Crown land it sat on.  The same is true of deliberations over issues and development affecting federal and provincial parks and provincial forest lands and natural resource in my region.

As for the preamble to the Charter and its recognition of God notice an Eagle-feather will suffice in lieu of a Bible when saying whatever magic words get you thru the day.  I for one would feel a lot less persecuted and more like a Canadian if my representative could solemnly swear on a Noodle they would be honest and true to his word.

[WestCanMan]

28 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's not correct where I live in BC.  1st Nations governments here had as much or more say than local non-native governments when it came to the disposition of a light-house and the Federal Crown land it sat on.  The same is true of deliberations over issues and development affecting federal and provincial parks and provincial forest lands and natural resource in my region.

As for the preamble to the Charter and its recognition of God notice an Eagle-feather will suffice in lieu of a Bible when saying whatever magic words get you thru the day.  I for one would feel a lot less persecuted and more like a Canadian if my representative could solemnly swear on a Noodle they would be honest and true to his word.

I have no strong reaction to any of that.

I'm glad that people can choose to swear on an eagle feather if they want. I'm ok with people swearing on the bible. It would make more sense if people swore that oath on a copy of the Criminal Code of Canada when they swore in but whatever. 

I don't object to 1st nations people having some more say in matters related to forest lands. Everybody has their hill to die on. What happens in a Provincial Park might affect my leisure time, what happens in a Provincial Park beside a reserve might greatly affect the local wildlife in an area.

The environment wasn't under the pressure that it is today back when the constitution was drawn up, and I don't think things were very fair for first nations back then. 

Honestly i don't follow any of that stuff closely enough to weigh in with an informed opinion re: first nations treaties. I do know that 1st nations people get the same protections in the Charter as everyone else, and that the preamble doesn't put limitations on it in any way.