Is Canada Anti-Semitic?

[Who's Doing What?]

I see for the most part a trigger happy group of people who are all too willing to use the racist card when ever things are not going well for their side.

I agree. The sad thing is several other groups do the same.

How can I have a meaningful debate with someone who labels me a "Racist"?

[Leafless]

I don't think anti-semitisim is on the rise, but charges of anti-semitism certainly are. It comes from the same type of debater who dismisses criticism of the government as "Harper-hating," or criticism of gay marriage as homophobia.

You could be using the wrong word pertaining to anti-semitism.

Sem·ite ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smt)

n.

1.-A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.

The question that should be asked are racist actions against Canadian Christians and Jews increasing by Canadian Muzlims especially those who greatly adhere to Islam. According to the Koran I beleive Muslims would prefer ALL none followers of their religion killed.

According to Muslims Islam is a religion of peace.

How then does this explain since 9.11.2001 there have been 3,192 terrorist attacks.

http://www.hitechcj.com/homelandsecurity/

[gc1765]

The left has a habit of moralizing on politics. If you don't agree with their political viewpoint, then you're immoral.

And the right doesn't do this? Like with abortion and SSM??

But isn't the law and constitution based on Christian values?

No, the laws of Canada are based on what is "best" for Canadians. If the law was based on Christian values, no one would be punished because we'd all be turning the other cheek, or waiting for God to cast the first stone. Not to mention that rich people would be forced to give up their money to charity.

[watching&waiting]

I find that yes I will purposely take opposing position just because of the way I feel.

That sounds like blind reflexive prejudice to me.

If I had my way every Iman who does not condemn the acts and recruitment of terrorist or religious wars, should be removed from Canada, because this not only goes against our laws, but it is allowing recruitment from right here in our country.

How much condemnation do they have to do to avoid your punishment?

Now does this make me anti-muslim? Of course not, it means that I will openly accept muslims as long as their religion stays within the laws we have in Canada. If they can not then they need to go else where.

Their religion does stay with the laws of Canada and you are punishing them for the actions of other people. Therefore, yes, that makes you anti-muslim.

I am curious to know: what are your thoughts on atheists?

I am not blinded by my positions held because of a group who always seems to be whining over little things and making them much more then they are. That is the reason for my opposition. I follow the rules of my past experience, and use that for how I deal with future incidents. That is not racist, that is just following lifes lessons.

As for how much condemnation would be enough? I would say at least some public showing of rejection for these acts would be the easiest measure. Also not preaching that Jahids are for the good of the religion but that, tolerence should be given as much as it is expected. That does not make me anti-muslim but it does make me tolerent of their religion as long as it stays within the laws of our country, and when it steps outside those laws I say we must be reactive to it within our laws. That is what good citizens do.

Atheists are simple non believers in god. To me that means they still obey the laws we have set for our country and they are welcome to their beliefs. Now if their beliefs were to break our laws then we would have an issue, but since not then we will not. I do not try to impose my beliefs on anyone and I do not believe I am better then anyone. Can the worlds religions say the same? If you look at all the wars being fought at this moment, is there one that is not based in religious differences? It is time to say religion needs to be seen for its peaceful side not its uglier side of being better then the next guy.

[Leafless]

No, the laws of Canada are based on what is "best" for Canadians. If the law was based on Christian values, no one would be punished because we'd all be turning the other cheek, or waiting for God to cast the first stone. Not to mention that rich people would be forced to give up their money to charity.

What you are saying is ludicrous.

The preamble regarding the Constitution Act 1982 says " Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."

It was the Liberals who have created laws including the doctoring of our Constitution to the standards associated with the Liberal party of Canada excluding the input of Canadians 'who pay the taxes'.

The laws of this primarily Christian country should be created with the interest of the majority and not by the Liberals who emulate God with their misguided wisdom concerning their cultural beliefs imposed on the majority.

All Canadians should think twice before even considering giving your vote to the Liberals who are quickly becoming an extremely poor excuse for a federal party.

[jdobbin]

What you are saying is ludicrous.

The preamble regarding the Constitution Act 1982 says " Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."

It was the Liberals who have created laws including the doctoring of our Constitution to the standards associated with the Liberal party of Canada excluding the input of Canadians 'who pay the taxes'.

The laws of this primarily Christian country should be created with the interest of the majority and not by the Liberals who emulate God with their misguided wisdom concerning their cultural beliefs imposed on the majority.

All Canadians should think twice before even considering giving your vote to the Liberals who are quickly becoming an extremely poor excuse for a federal party.

It seems to me that there were a lot of parties responsible for bringing home the Constitution. There were Liberals, Conservatives and NDP and for a while, the Parti Quebecois.

[Leafless]

What you are saying is ludicrous.

The preamble regarding the Constitution Act 1982 says " Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."

It was the Liberals who have created laws including the doctoring of our Constitution to the standards associated with the Liberal party of Canada excluding the input of Canadians 'who pay the taxes'.

The laws of this primarily Christian country should be created with the interest of the majority and not by the Liberals who emulate God with their misguided wisdom concerning their cultural beliefs imposed on the majority.

All Canadians should think twice before even considering giving your vote to the Liberals who are quickly becoming an extremely poor excuse for a federal party.

It seems to me that there were a lot of parties responsible for bringing home the Constitution. There were Liberals, Conservatives and NDP and for a while, the Parti Quebecois.

I think you have your facts wrong.

It was the Liberals Pierre Trudeau who repatriated the Constituiton.

Please provide links to back up your absurd claims.

[jdobbin]

I think you have your facts wrong.

It was the Liberals Pierre Trudeau who repatriated the Constituiton.

Please provide links to back up your absurd claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

In its decision in the Patriation Reference (1981), the Supreme Court of Canada had ruled there was a tradition that some provincial approval should be sought for constitutional reform. As the provinces still had doubts about the Charter's merits, Trudeau was forced to accept the notwithstanding clause to allow governments to opt out of certain obligations. The notwithstanding clause was accepted as part of a deal called the Kitchen Accord, negotiated by the federal Attorney General Jean Chrétien, Ontario's justice minister Roy McMurtry and Saskatchewan's justice minister Roy Romanow. Pressure from provincial governments (which in Canada have jurisdiction over property) and from the country's left-wing, especially the New Democratic Party, also prevented Trudeau from including any rights protecting private property.

***

That's all three parties there adding and subtracting things from the patriated constitution. The PQ was involved earlier but didn't approve the Constitution. The rest of the provinces did.

The "kitchen accord" between the provinces and the federal government sealed the deal.

[gc1765]

No, the laws of Canada are based on what is "best" for Canadians. If the law was based on Christian values, no one would be punished because we'd all be turning the other cheek, or waiting for God to cast the first stone. Not to mention that rich people would be forced to give up their money to charity.

What you are saying is ludicrous.

It's not ludicrous. It's straight out of the bible, actually.

Read John 8:3-11 and Matthew 5:38-41. Compare that with our justice system. Now, do you actually believe that our justice system is based on Christianity?

The preamble regarding the Constitution Act 1982 says " Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."

So? Just because the Constitution recognizes the supremacy of God does not mean that our laws are based on Christianity. I think my examples above make that very clear.

[BubberMiley]

I think you have your facts wrong.

It was the Liberals Pierre Trudeau who repatriated the Constituiton.

Please provide links to back up your absurd claims.

How about the history books, which clearly explain in Grade 10 language the whole process of constitutional reform and how you need the agreement of nearly all the provinces to make any changes.

[Argus]

I posted some urls to back this up yesterday, York University is another U with problems.

While I don't think that disagreeing with Israel's policies are anti semitic, antisemitism seems to be on the rise.

There is an article here on Canadian anti semitism.

http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-prutschi-f04.htm

These are incidents. There have been incidents against other religions as well in the last fives years.

None that I can think of. A few isolated incidents, but nothing compares to the anti-semitic incidents, or the anti-Israeli incident, especially in terms of either semi-official endorsement or large crowds of violent people

[Argus]

Does this make me an anti-semite? No, it makes me normal and the constant whining from one source all the time makes me want to remove that source,

So you'd like to get rid of the gay rights groups, right?

[jdobbin]

None that I can think of. A few isolated incidents, but nothing compares to the anti-semitic incidents, or the anti-Israeli incident, especially in terms of either semi-official endorsement or large crowds of violent people

That's a few around the world including in Canada.

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/display/...categoryId=7575

[Leafless]

I think you have your facts wrong.

It was the Liberals Pierre Trudeau who repatriated the Constituiton.

Please provide links to back up your absurd claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

In its decision in the Patriation Reference (1981), the Supreme Court of Canada had ruled there was a tradition that some provincial approval should be sought for constitutional reform. As the provinces still had doubts about the Charter's merits, Trudeau was forced to accept the notwithstanding clause to allow governments to opt out of certain obligations. The notwithstanding clause was accepted as part of a deal called the Kitchen Accord, negotiated by the federal Attorney General Jean Chrétien, Ontario's justice minister Roy McMurtry and Saskatchewan's justice minister Roy Romanow. Pressure from provincial governments (which in Canada have jurisdiction over property) and from the country's left-wing, especially the New Democratic Party, also prevented Trudeau from including any rights protecting private property.

***

That's all three parties there adding and subtracting things from the patriated constitution. The PQ was involved earlier but didn't approve the Constitution. The rest of the provinces did.

The "kitchen accord" between the provinces and the federal government sealed the deal.

The "kitchen accord" did NOT repatriate Canad's Constitution.

The initial question was WHO repatriated the Constitution, not the process leading up to it's repatriation.

And that was Pierre Trudeau and his Liberal government who repatriated our Constitution from England.

Besides Trudeau could have legally repatriated our Constitution WITHOUT the consent of the provinces but the Supreme Court decided it Should have the agreement of the provinces and Trudeau obliged.

It was only AFTER the Constitution was repatriated to Canada that the NWC (notwithstanding clause) was added to allow provinces to opt out of certain sections of the Constitution. To date it was only Quebec (who uses it on a regular basis)and Saskatchewan to take advantage of the NWC.

Again it is ludicrous that Quebec who never signed our Constitution initially be allowed to use this NWC as repatriating the Constitution was basically done for the benefit of Quebec in which the Charter of Rights was imbedded into the Constitution for their benefit and cannot be easily removed by any change of government.

[jdobbin]

The "kitchen accord" did NOT repatriate Canad's Constitution.

The initial question was WHO repatriated the Constitution, not the process leading up to it's repatriation.

And that was Pierre Trudeau and his Liberal government who repatriated our Constitution from England.

Besides Trudeau could have legally repatriated our Constitution WITHOUT the consent of the provinces but the Supreme Court decided it Should have the agreement of the provinces and Trudeau obliged.

It was only AFTER the Constitution was repatriated to Canada that the NWC (notwithstanding clause) was added to allow provinces to opt out of certain sections of the Constitution. To date it was only Quebec (who uses it on a regular basis)and Saskatchewan to take advantage of the NWC.

Again it is ludicrous that Quebec who never signed our Constitution initially be allowed to use this NWC as repatriating the Constitution was basically done for the benefit of Quebec in which the Charter of Rights was imbedded into the Constitution for their benefit and cannot be easily removed by any change of government.

The Constitution could not be repatriated until it was signed by the Queen. And it wasn't signed until after the provinces worked on the Charter of Rights together with the federal government.

[Leafless]

I think you have your facts wrong.

It was the Liberals Pierre Trudeau who repatriated the Constituiton.

Please provide links to back up your absurd claims.

How about the history books, which clearly explain in Grade 10 language the whole process of constitutional reform and how you need the agreement of nearly all the provinces to make any changes.

That's how dumb your grade 10 history books are. The Constitution firstly has to repatriated in order to make changes to it.

BTW Trudeau initially could have repatriated the Constitution legally WITHOUT the agreement of the provinces.

It was only after provincial squabling that the Supreme Court got involved and it was decided that that the federal government SHOULD have the agreement of the provinces in which Trudeau obliged.

[Leafless]

The "kitchen accord" did NOT repatriate Canad's Constitution.

The initial question was WHO repatriated the Constitution, not the process leading up to it's repatriation.

And that was Pierre Trudeau and his Liberal government who repatriated our Constitution from England.

Besides Trudeau could have legally repatriated our Constitution WITHOUT the consent of the provinces but the Supreme Court decided it Should have the agreement of the provinces and Trudeau obliged.

It was only AFTER the Constitution was repatriated to Canada that the NWC (notwithstanding clause) was added to allow provinces to opt out of certain sections of the Constitution. To date it was only Quebec (who uses it on a regular basis)and Saskatchewan to take advantage of the NWC.

Again it is ludicrous that Quebec who never signed our Constitution initially be allowed to use this NWC as repatriating the Constitution was basically done for the benefit of Quebec in which the Charter of Rights was imbedded into the Constitution for their benefit and cannot be easily removed by any change of government.

The Constitution could not be repatriated until it was signed by the Queen. And it wasn't signed until after the provinces worked on the Charter of Rights together with the federal government.

Trudeau had written his OWN amending formula and would have receved the Queen's approval.

It was provincial squabling and the fact the provinces took him to court over the matter and Trudeau despite having the LEGAL power to repatriate the Constitution unilaterally agreed the provinces SHOULD be invoved in the process.

Eventually all provinces but Quebec signed on.

[jdobbin]

Trudeau had written his OWN amending formula and would have receved the Queen's approval.

It was provincial squabling and the fact the provinces took him to court over the matter and Trudeau despite having the LEGAL power to repatriate the Constitution unilaterally agreed the provinces SHOULD be invoved in the process.

Eventually all provinces but Quebec signed on.

He did go to all the provinces though to get their seal of approval before going to the London to repatriate the Constitution. He never did it completely unilaterally. It really was an all party work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriation

[Leafless]

Trudeau had written his OWN amending formula and would have receved the Queen's approval.

It was provincial squabling and the fact the provinces took him to court over the matter and Trudeau despite having the LEGAL power to repatriate the Constitution unilaterally agreed the provinces SHOULD be invoved in the process.

Eventually all provinces but Quebec signed on.

He did go to all the provinces though to get their seal of approval before going to the London to repatriate the Constitution. He never did it completely unilaterally. It really was an all party work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriation

I really don't know what point your trying to impress.

Repatriation of our Constitution was a Liberal idea mainly for the benefit of Quebec.

I suspect provincial premiers had no idea what they were getting into at that time and am certain if the premiers had to do it all over again they would not be as obliging.

What kind of Constitution have we got when it can be twisted and manipulated over the years mainly by the Liberals to suit their political agenda.

Nothing is clearly spelled out and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has turned out to be a cultural politcal tool tailored made for one specific culture and for the discriminatory advancement of that culture.

[BubberMiley]

Repatriation of our Constitution was a Liberal idea mainly for the benefit of Quebec.

But Quebec was the only province that didn't agree to it. All others, representing Conservative, Liberal, NDP, and Social Credit governments, supported it. To say that they wouldn't support it now or that they didn't know what they were getting into is nothing more than unsubstantiated speculation. I haven't heard one of these former premiers express regret for bringing forth the Charter or the Constitution. I have however heard some express regret for the notwithstanding clause, which could undermine it.

[jdobbin]

I really don't know what point your trying to impress.

Repatriation of our Constitution was a Liberal idea mainly for the benefit of Quebec.

I suspect provincial premiers had no idea what they were getting into at that time and am certain if the premiers had to do it all over again they would not be as obliging.

What kind of Constitution have we got when it can be twisted and manipulated over the years mainly by the Liberals to suit their political agenda.

Nothing is clearly spelled out and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has turned out to be a cultural politcal tool tailored made for one specific culture and for the discriminatory advancement of that culture.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[GostHacked]

Betsy.

I think the better question is 'Is Canada becoming anti-Israel?' If I hated Jews being an anti-semite, I would be attacking Jews here at home instead of abroad. But that is not the case (well there was one case in the US) If it was true anti-semite, then you would hear stronger language than what we here. If it was true anti-semite, it would not matter what Israel does. A jew hater is a jew hater. But being anti-Israel is different. But those who question Israel and it's right to exist (like I do) are labeled as an anti-semite. For what it is worth I don't really like or support the United States of America. That does not mean I hate it's citizens. But the actions of a whole country is what is making me angry.

Once people can see the difference between anti-Israel and anti-semite, then we can sit down at the table and discuss this. Untill then, people can keep calling me an anti-semite and never have the chance to actually hear what I have to say.

[Argus]

None that I can think of. A few isolated incidents, but nothing compares to the anti-semitic incidents, or the anti-Israeli incident, especially in terms of either semi-official endorsement or large crowds of violent people

That's a few around the world including in Canada.

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/display/...categoryId=7575

Phht. A few windows broken. How many schools burned down? And where can you get together a violent mob to attack a Muslim speaker and the people who want to hear him? They seem to have plenty of those for Israeli speakers at various Canadian universities.

[Drea]

Betsy.

I think the better question is 'Is Canada becoming anti-Israel?' If I hated Jews being an anti-semite, I would be attacking Jews here at home instead of abroad. But that is not the case (well there was one case in the US) If it was true anti-semite, then you would hear stronger language than what we here. If it was true anti-semite, it would not matter what Israel does. A jew hater is a jew hater. But being anti-Israel is different. But those who question Israel and it's right to exist (like I do) are labeled as an anti-semite. For what it is worth I don't really like or support the United States of America. That does not mean I hate it's citizens. But the actions of a whole country is what is making me angry.

Once people can see the difference between anti-Israel and anti-semite, then we can sit down at the table and discuss this. Untill then, people can keep calling me an anti-semite and never have the chance to actually hear what I have to say.

Gost, IMO,

Canada isn't becoming anti-Isreal OR anti-semite.

Just like those who don't agree with the USA's current administration are automatically labelled anti-American.

Both Isreal and America (the governments - not the citizens!) are acting like idiots these days and people have a right to dicuss it without being labelled anti-anything!

[Leafless]

Repatriation of our Constitution was a Liberal idea mainly for the benefit of Quebec.

But Quebec was the only province that didn't agree to it. All others, representing Conservative, Liberal, NDP, and Social Credit governments, supported it. To say that they wouldn't support it now or that they didn't know what they were getting into is nothing more than unsubstantiated speculation. I haven't heard one of these former premiers express regret for bringing forth the Charter or the Constitution. I have however heard some express regret for the notwithstanding clause, which could undermine it.

And why did they not sign it?

Because the wanted special treatment as a 'distinct society'.

Well, to-day they are a distinct society on the same level as a separate country thanks initially to Quebecer Trudeau for repatriating our Constitution and the continual manipulation and invented interpretations of the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' by mainly the federal Liberal party who traditionally have heavy representation from Quebec. Maybe all provinces would like to enjoy the SAME STATUS.

The reason you will never hear provincial premiers say they wouldn't support it now because they would never admit initially that they were fools to be duped by Trudeau into supporting repatriation the Constitution without knowing the full effects of what could be done with the modified Constitution and what we know to-day that has resulted from it.

The second reason you won't hear premiers complain about it including the NWC is of COURSE 'it would be bad for national unity'. This of course is total BS as exactly how far is Quebec suppose to be assisted federally in it's quest for 'distinctiveness'.

I think it's time to have a referendum to see if CANADIANS want to retain Quebec in confederation as Canada is no longer a country but in fact TWO under a single federal government with Quebec being supported federally by ALL Canadian taxpayers.