What evidence is there to support Canada being 'systemically racist'?

[TreeBeard]

6 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

in order to claim sovereignty over a territory, your armed forces must be able to defend & secure said territory

if your armed forces are not capable of doing that, then that territory is ungoverned for all intents & purposes

at which point, other nation's are within their rights to move in to secure that territory for their own protection

to wit, you cannot invoke UN Article 51 Right to Self Defense over territories which you are not able to defend

Once again, you’re making stuff up.  Might makes right is nowhere in international law like you claim it is.  

[I am Groot]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

If what you're saying is true there'd have been no basis or reason for the SCC to rule that 1st Nations do have the legal right to claim sovereignty over their territories.

The Supreme Court of Canada rarely acknowledges reality. Especially regarding natives and their 'nations'. 

[Dougie93]

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Once again, you’re making stuff up.  Might makes right is nowhere in international law like you claim it is.  

this was the mandate under which NATO invaded Afghanistan

the Taliban failed to secure the territory, allowing Al Qaeda to launch attacks from therein

resulting in an UNSC Resolution Chapter 7, overriding any Article 51 claims made by the Taliban government

[Moonbox]

On 11/11/2022 at 2:27 PM, TreeBeard said:

Once again, you’re making stuff up.  Might makes right is nowhere in international law like you claim it is.  

It kind of is though.  International Law should be renamed "International Norms and Accepted Convention".  They only matter when they can be enforced, and they are only enforced on weaker nations.  There's a long list of atrocities and sovereignty violation on the part of major powers (including the USA) that will never be addressed because, as Dougie says, Might Makes Right.  

[TreeBeard]

50 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

It kind of is though.  International Law should be renamed "International Norms and Accepted Convention".  They only matter when they can be enforced, and they are only enforced on weaker nations.  There's a long list of atrocities and sovereignty violation on the part of major powers (including the USA) that will never be addressed because, as Dougie says, Might Makes Right.  

That is breaking international law though.   The contention was that the might makes right doctrine is enshrined in international law, which it is not. 

[I am Groot]

21 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

That is breaking international law though.   The contention was that the might makes right doctrine is enshrined in international law, which it is not. 

Of what value is a law which is unenforceable? 

Edited November 15, 2022 by I am Groot

[Moonbox]

22 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

That is breaking international law though.   The contention was that the might makes right doctrine is enshrined in international law, which it is not. 

I get it, but that distinction (like international law itself) isn't very poignant. The lack of universal standards and enforcement capacity make the whole thing mostly symbolic.  That doesn't mean it's completely irrelevant, but International Law is going to have very little to do with resolving territorial disputes in the Donbass or Crimea.  

[TreeBeard]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Of what value is a law which is unenforceable? 

 

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I get it, but that distinction (like international law itself) isn't very poignant. The lack of universal standards and enforcement capacity make the whole thing mostly symbolic.  That doesn't mean it's completely irrelevant, but International Law is going to have very little to do with resolving territorial disputes in the Donbass or Crimea.  

Agreed, we do not have a “world police” or an actual world court to enforce these things. 
 

There are dispute mechanisms with respect to borders and such, but once the missiles start flying, there’s nothing that happens to enforce what’s there. 
 

However, that doesn’t mean that “might makes right” is written into international law, as was claimed. 

[WestCanMan]

On 11/14/2022 at 8:27 AM, Moonbox said:

It kind of is though.  International Law should be renamed "International Norms and Accepted Convention".  They only matter when they can be enforced, and they are only enforced on weaker nations.  There's a long list of atrocities and sovereignty violation on the part of major powers (including the USA) that will never be addressed because, as Dougie says, Might Makes Right.  

FYI borders are, for the most part, arbitrary. 

Yes, it stands to reason that Australia isn't part of Greenland, but all of the lines that delineate the countries in Africa, NA, SA, Asia and Europe are just arbitrary, and were all put there by the might of the last army to claim victory there.  

The UN can't really rubber-stamp every country ever put on the map except for Canada and the US. 

Do you hate that your ancestors came to Canada and you live in a nice house now? Do you feel guilty? Do you think it's unfair to stop people from Mexico from just waltzing across the border and saying "I'm here now, where do I vote?"

Chill. 

No one wanted to leave the Yucatan to live in a tar paper shack in Ponoka AB 70 years ago. If you tied people up and dragged them here they'd do their best to get back to where they came from. This place is what it is because we built it, and because of our fair, inclusive society.

What lesser right do we have to be here than, for example, the people who currently live in Pakistan? That line was artificially drawn and millions of people were murdered as a result, in ethnic cleansings that killed roughly as many people and were far more "successful" than Hitler's attempt to get the Jews out of Germany. 

Pakistan isn't alone. There's probably not a line anywhere on the map that was drawn guilt-free. Our "guilt" is not unique. It's normal. The only thing unique about Britain and her colonies is that we abolished slavery when we had the power to keep people in chains. 

Look at all the other countries on the map and remind me of which ones were dominant powers on earth but they chose to abolish slavery and allow gay marriage, etc...

You only hate Canada because you think that self-flagellation makes you look "ultra-prog", which is just another way of saying "unintelligent and credulous". 

Edited November 15, 2022 by WestCanMan

[West]

Canada is systemically barbaric after what governments of all levels implemented against the unvaxxed