Dressed to kill

[Leafless]

The SCC as we already know has allowed Sikh's to wear a ceremonial sword the kirpan including in our public schools not Sikh's schools but public schools and is associated with their religious beliefs along with other items of clothing signifying in to-days society an abnormal attachment to ones religon in a Western country.

Many Canadians find this offensive and potential dangerous as the kirpan defined literally means a weapon of defense as opposed to the talwar weapon of offense.

Homosexuals have belittled Christianity and anyone who believe's in God in order to extract the definiton of marriage to include homosexuals.

Muslims have complained that the Christian Lord's Prayer is offensive and not associated with their Islamic religion and was therefore discontinued as was Christmas school play's and even had an impact at banning Christmas cards with the wording Merry Christmas. These people come from a country where there is no civilized society but one ruled entirely by their Islamic religious beliefs which have also been the root caused creating havoc and death around the world.

What is happening to Canadian heritage, traditon and majority Christian religion when attacked this way? Even the majority English language is under attack in order to force it to become a second rate language to accomodate a useless minority language outside of Quebec.

And some people actually wonder why groups sit around a table wondering what to do about this type of situation as well as being labelled White supremacist.

Please give me a break! This country is not la-la land.

Or is it?

[fryingpan]

The SCC as we already know has allowed Sikh's to wear a ceremonial sword the kirpan including in our public schools not Sikh's schools but public schools and is associated with their religious beliefs along with other items of clothing signifying in to-days society an abnormal attachment to ones religon in a Western country.

Many Canadians find this offensive and potential dangerous as the kirpan defined literally means a weapon of defense as opposed to the talwar weapon of offense.

Homosexuals have belittled Christianity and anyone who believe's in God in order to extract the definiton of marriage to include homosexuals.

Muslims have complained that the Christian Lord's Prayer is offensive and not associated with their Islamic religion and was therefore discontinued as was Christmas school play's and even had an impact at banning Christmas cards with the wording Merry Christmas. These people come from a country where there is no civilized society but one ruled entirely by their Islamic religious beliefs which have also been the root caused creating havoc and death around the world.

What is happening to Canadian heritage, traditon and majority Christian religion when attacked this way? Even the majority English language is under attack in order to force it to become a second rate language to accomodate a useless minority language outside of Quebec.

And some people actually wonder why groups sit around a table wondering what to do about this type of situation as well as being labelled White supremacist.

Please give me a break! This country is not la-la land.

Or is it?

I think that people coming here from other countries should at least attempt to adapt to Canadian customs and cultures. They shouldn't have to give up their own cultures entirely, but to insist that Canadians change to accomodate them just isn't right. Canadian citizens should not have to give up their beliefs just to please a small percentage of people.

The truth is, you can't please everyone. There will always be cultures that clash with each other, and there is no way you can allow one group to do something that won't offend another group. I say we should go with what the majority wants, at least then most people will be happy. Or at least content.

[Riverwind]

Canadian citizens should not have to give up their beliefs just to please a small percentage of people.

Since when is banning anything that could be used as a weapon from school a sacred belief that current Canadians should not be expected give up? The ban on weapons is a safety issue so the school boards should be expected to demonstrate that the safety concern is real and outweighs the violation of a person's religious beliefs. The SCC looked at the issue and decided that in the case of schools that there was no real safety issue and the objection of the school board was not justified. The SCC also said banning kirpans on airlines was legitimate since the safety risk in that situation was real.

Sikhs have been allowed to carry their daggers to BC schools for years without any incident. This fact more or less proved that the safety risk was simply a excuse to try an deny someone else's right to practice the religion of their choosing.

[August1991]

I think that people coming here from other countries should at least attempt to adapt to Canadian customs and cultures. They shouldn't have to give up their own cultures entirely, but to insist that Canadians change to accomodate them just isn't right. Canadian citizens should not have to give up their beliefs just to please a small percentage of people.

The problem with that argument is that if the Europeans who first came adapted to the customs of the people living here at the time, where would we all be now?

The criteria should not be adjusting to a new society or, "When you are in Rome, do as the Romans." I would prefer a more sophisticated argument.

Afterall, if all the Romans are jumping off cliffs, would you too jump off a cliff?

[BubberMiley]

Muslims have complained that the Christian Lord's Prayer is offensive and not associated with their Islamic religion and was therefore discontinued as was Christmas school play's and even had an impact at banning Christmas cards with the wording Merry Christmas.

Really? So the ones I received this Xmas were contraband? Is there a fine for possession? How much do they go for on the black market?

[Leafless]

August1991

You wrote- " The problem with that argument is that if the Europeans who first came adapted to the customs of the people living here at the time, where would we all be now?

Where?

I think we are talking about a modern established society that already has a claim to ownership and is not the vacant land of plenty like many new immigrants think it is.

This is a problem though for our federal government that in order to establish Charter freedoms and rights they must destroy the fought for and worked for established freedoms and genuine rights of other groups.

In other words in some aspects Charter Rights when enforced can be just as destructive to the rights of others as a country ruled by communism which in turn also destroys personal initiative.

This is why official multiculturalism in my opinion will fail in time.

[BubberMiley]

August1991

I think we are talking about a modern established society that already has a claim to ownership and is not the vacant land of plenty like many new immigrants think it is.

I think the society that was here before the Europeans was well established with the same claim to ownership. I'm not sure what modernity has to do with anything though.

[Leafless]

BubberMiley

You wrote- " Really? So the ones I received for Xmas were contraband? Is there a fine for possession? How much do they go for on the black market?"

The federal government has developed a politcal correctness policy that most buisness adheres to in order to fully capitilize on sales of all types by not offending anyone. At least this is the way I understand it talking to various buisness owners.

We found our 'Merry Christmas' and 'Happy New Years' cards but had a difficult time. But now that you mentioned it the majority of the ones I received DID NOT state 'Merry Christmas' or 'Happy New Years' but only reflected the 'holiday season'.

In other words we are being federally dictated to as to how to celebrate our traditional celebrations.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a 'xxx' rating on boxes of Christmas cards.

[geoffrey]

August1991

I think we are talking about a modern established society that already has a claim to ownership and is not the vacant land of plenty like many new immigrants think it is.

I think the society that was here before the Europeans was well established with the same claim to ownership. I'm not sure what modernity has to do with anything though.

They were a bunch of generally Nomadic hunter-gathers. They didn't 'own' the land.

There wasn't a society or nation in Canada previously, just a bunch of people hanging out, eatting buffalo, making costumes...

First Nations, Second Thoughts by Tom Flanagan (Poli. sci. prof at U of C, happened to also be the CPC campaign guy) is a book I'd recommend to you on the topic of how much they people really have in a claim to anything.

It's sold at Chapters (in Trade Paperback now) so it can't possibly have any offensive stuff in it, don't worry.

[BubberMiley]

The federal government has developed a politcal correctness policy that most buisness adheres to in order to fully capitilize on sales of all types by not offending anyone. At least this is the way I understand it talking to various buisness owners.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If christians want "merry christmas" cards they will buy them (and good god! don't tell me christmas crap is hard to find! It's bloody everywhere in December!). So business adheres to what sells. I received plenty of cards saying merry christmas, so don't worry, they're still out there. Nobody is offended by a christmas card anyway. Just some people (who aren't christian and don't celebrate christmas) sometimes don't appreciate being told merry christmas incessantly. I say, take them off your card list. You just have a victimization complex. No matter how much your culture dominates (and christmas culture could not be any more dominant in December), you still feel hard-done-by.

[Slavik44]

They were a bunch of generally Nomadic hunter-gathers. They didn't 'own' the land.

There wasn't a society or nation in Canada previously, just a bunch of people hanging out, eatting buffalo, making costumes...

First Nations, Second Thoughts by Tom Flanagan (Poli. sci. prof at U of C, happened to also be the CPC campaign guy) is a book I'd recommend to you on the topic of how much they people really have in a claim to anything.

It's sold at Chapters (in Trade Paperback now) so it can't possibly have any offensive stuff in it, don't worry.

No society? Look at British Columbia, the natives there were so advanced, they had adopted the major corner Stones of American society before "America" existed. They had slavery, beauty products, religion, and the welfare state. They had magnificient open floor plan houses with a panoramic ocean view, they had vacation homes for their familiy. Their was private ownership of whaling and fishing locations, and if I broke your arm, I would be expected to compensate you. Out east we had the Iroquis who were constantly at war with the Hurons, very American if I do say so myself. Not only that but they even beat their POW's. The Iroquis also had houses and lived in one place for up to ten years, farming, I suppose we could take shots at todays millitary families here, how long do they live in one place? And like Canada today as you wander into the praries you find the wierdo's who beat their wives, ride horses, and get drunk while walking in the forrest.

[Leafless]

BubberMiley

You wrote- " don't tell me these Christmas crap is hard to find"

In our part of the country, yes these cards are hard to find.

We are really off topic as the purpose of this topic is to contest the position of government as we are beingrun by the ideologies ofminorities enforced by government who adheres to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to establish a sense of equality.

I think the purpose of government is to promote multiculturalism without destroying the cultural identity and traditions ofWhite, English speaking, Christian Canadians in the process.

[BubberMiley]

They were a bunch of generally Nomadic hunter-gathers. They didn't 'own' the land.

If they had no claim to the land, why did the white people create treaties for them to sign that made them (unknowingly) relinquish claim to the land?

[geoffrey]

And like Canada today as you wander into the praries you find the wierdo's who beat their wives, ride horses, and get drunk while walking in the forrest.

Go to hell. You got one bigoted attitude towards the west, shows clearly your intelligence, which is lacking.

The Indians in general don't believe in private ownership of land. I'm sorry if I forgot about the one in BC that does, out of the hundreds of nomadic tribes that composed most of the Indians.

They were a bunch of generally Nomadic hunter-gathers. They didn't 'own' the land.

If they had no claim to the land, why did the white people create treaties for them to sign that made them (unknowingly) relinquish claim to the land?

Covering our legal asses for the future I guess. We should have been more like every other nation and just forced them to assimilate, it would have saved us and them a ton of effort in the future.

[Riverwind]

The Indians in general don't believe in private ownership of land. I'm sorry if I forgot about the one in BC that does, out of the hundreds of nomadic tribes that composed most of the Indians.

Natives believed that the land could not be owned anymore than we believe the air we breathe can be owned. White settlers that 'claimed' the land for their exclusive use basically stole it from natives because they prevented natives from using the same land.

In some ways the Europeans did exactly what some fault recent immigrants for: imposing their social values on the existing population. If Europeans had respected the values of the native population they would allowed all land to be shared by everyone according to native traditions.

BTW. In 1500, the Americas had a fairly large population (close to 100 million people according to some estimates). However, the arrival of the Europeans brought disease that wiped out close to 90% of the population. So the idea that the Americas were unpopulated wilderness before the Europeans arrived is a myth.

[Leafless]

Sparhawk

You wrote- " If European had respected the values they would allow all land to be shared by everyone according to Native tradition."

If you can not defend your land then it is up for grabs by any country that wants it.

Although in modern society this is a liitle harder to accomplish but still exist in third world countries where sometimes genocide is the rule fo thumb to eliminate 'an in the way' population.

When it comes to war there are no rights only the fight to eliminate the oppositon in some cases any way possible.

Canada has always been self-rightous concerning a sense of fairness simply because of the ideologies of a federal government that include members of the original defeated country that continue to this day to manipulate the federal government in it's quest for power.

[Argus]

I think that people coming here from other countries should at least attempt to adapt to Canadian customs and cultures. They shouldn't have to give up their own cultures entirely, but to insist that Canadians change to accomodate them just isn't right. Canadian citizens should not have to give up their beliefs just to please a small percentage of people.

The problem with that argument is that if the Europeans who first came adapted to the customs of the people living here at the time, where would we all be now?

That's sophistry. A more logical argument would say that if the Natives had enforced such a policy they wouldn't have been completely overwhelmed by newcomers and wouldn't now be relegated to reserves.

The criteria should not be adjusting to a new society or, "When you are in Rome, do as the Romans." I would prefer a more sophisticated argument.

Afterall, if all the Romans are jumping off cliffs, would you too jump off a cliff?

Another invalid argument. We are not jumping off cliffs, and the only thing we seem to be doing as a people which is endangering us is allowing vast numbers of quick-breeding foreigners to come here and preserve and expand their own cultures at the expense of ours.

[Slavik44]

Go to hell. You got one bigoted attitude towards the west, shows clearly your intelligence, which is lacking.

The Indians in general don't believe in private ownership of land. I'm sorry if I forgot about the one in BC that does, out of the hundreds of nomadic tribes that composed most of the Indians.

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" When you replied I thought you might be makign an attempt at humor, because you really gave the natives no credit, going so far as to say they had no society, I thought you must at the very least be tryign to make an attempt at humor. So in response I gave you a somewhat sarcastic reply based on culture stereo types--Dumb ass redneck albertans, War lord Americans who beat their POW's, etc... because you to used such stereo types I meerely responded with the exact same tactic. I preyed on stereo types, except when I did that you found it extremely offensive and decided to tell me to go to hell. Showign meerely how hipocritical you are, it was fine for you to blatantly insult native culture, but when I jokingly did the same about western society, you lost it, shame on you.

As for some points,

1) All native tribes had a society, society is the summation of human interactions...it is the make up of peoples daily lives, it is blatant ignorance to deny that natives had interactions, customs, and culture.

2) The only natives that hunted Buffalo were the Plains Buffalo Hunters, those that lived in the praries, it may come as a shock but there were no bloody buffalo in P.E.I.

3) What is nomadiac, most fully nomadiac tribes, those in the prariers and Canadian North, had lower populations, While most groups on the west coast and those that spoke the Iroquis langauge had more permanent dwelling areas and had much heavy populations.

4) Property, could I rightfully claim banff national park as my own, just because it is not private? While most natives had no codified private property in the western sense, it would be a mistake in bad faith to say that as groups they did not control areas or, hold soveriegnty of lands. Most Iroquis villages for example would be surrounded by defendable barricades, while land was not a commodity to be bought and sold, territory and farm land of a group could/would and was defended against invasions from other native groups.

5) Millitary Alliances, I feel I must touch on these meerely to point out the fact that outside group pacts would indicate that natives could make a claim to soveriegnty, to control, and to being governed, they were not a heldless body walking through the forrests...they worked both with and against surrounding native groups.

6) The NorthWest Coast Natives stretched basically from Alaska to the south end of British Columbia, they had a fairly large population, had familial ownership of fishing sites and housing locations, they had beauty products, and had a form of a class system, which included slaves.

7) In the praries as the use of horses became widespread, native groups ran into each other more often making conflict somewhat more common. Why? Because native individual native groups still followed herds, they still needed exclusive hunting territory. While this is not private property, it could be considered a crude form of crown land...this is our land to share between us.

8) Canada and America were not the only countries colonized by Europe, south of us there were many countries colonized by Europe countries that did have permanent settlements, advanced cultures, and could be considered by even the toughest crititic as nations. The principle holds true, if you always must do as the romans when in rome, it was undoubtedley violated in South American countries, in India, the Middle east, etc...

-------------------------------------

The SCC as we already know has allowed Sikh's to wear a ceremonial sword the kirpan including in our public schools not Sikh's schools but public schools and is associated with their religious beliefs along with other items of clothing signifying in to-days society an abnormal attachment to ones religon in a Western country.

Signifying in todays society an abnormal attachment to religion? There are many in todays society that would claim any attachment to religion is abnormal, wether it is a girl wearing a crucifix as big as her cleavage or a sihk wearing a turbin or a kirpan.

Many Canadians find this offensive and potential dangerous as the kirpan defined literally means a weapon of defense as opposed to the talwar weapon of offense.

I don't neccasarilly find it offensive, and while it may have the potential for danger I do not find it dangerous. Of all the student to student violence in Canadian schools we have not once had an instance where a student harmed another student with a kirpan. Make no mistkae about it, kirpans were in schools long before this ruiling, this ruiling applies specifically to quebec, but in other Canadian provinces thsi has been permitted for a long time with out problems, the same can't even be said for safety scisors or basketballs.

Homosexuals have belittled Christianity and anyone who believe's in God in order to extract the definiton of marriage to include homosexuals.

To most fundemental christians being homosexual belittles them, how about Larry Spencer who declared homsexuality should be outlawed, is that not belittling homosexuals is that not offensive not only to homosexuals but to most Canadians, to have a political representative declare they want homosexuality outlawed, that would be a fundemental violation of human rights and an intolerable act

Muslims have complained that the Christian Lord's Prayer is offensive and not associated with their Islamic religion and was therefore discontinued as was Christmas school play's and even had an impact at banning Christmas cards with the wording Merry Christmas. These people come from a country where there is no civilized society but one ruled entirely by their Islamic religious beliefs which have also been the root caused creating havoc and death around the world.

Now hold on, prayer has never been banned in school, anyone who has ever been to a school during test time knows that even athiests pray. Was it not God who declared that "I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." So let us not then exalt ourselves in public school showing everyone how religous we can be, say it to him in private from your heart not publicly proclaim it from some memorized verse in your head. On the same side the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms gurantees Canadians the freedom to choose to practice or not to practice religion or any religion.

What is happening to Canadian heritage, traditon and majority Christian religion when attacked this way? Even the majority English language is under attack in order to force it to become a second rate language to accomodate a useless minority language outside of Quebec.

While I think you might be over stating things a slight bit, I belive you might be onto something with the French language. However I would argue that instead seperation of Church and state shoudl be viewed as a blessing to the church, although I would say it is a blessing in disguise. The Christian religion is big on the concept of Free will, God gave man free will, I think religous people shoudl respect the fact that God wants individuals to choose to worship and respect him, not to have governments force people to respect God, because forced respect God is no better then forced Frenchification.

And some people actually wonder why groups sit around a table wondering what to do about this type of situation as well as being labelled White supremacist.

No, groups that sit around a table wearing bad sheets and pillow cases as hats are considered white supremicists, groups that loudly proclaim their culture to be superior to others and give no right to other people to have their own culture are white supremiscists, no different then a muslim who says all infidels must die, it is irrationality and a violation of our "unailable rights".