Racism and Calgary

[monkeyman]

oh I see guilty until proven innocent type deal eh?

These insane anti-discrimination laws are so ridiculous and dangerous... they aim to outlaw things in theory, and then expect the courts to authorise them on a case-by-case basis.

So not hiring a black person for a job is illegal... yet not hiring a white person isn't... and you leave it up to the judges (who are appointed not elected) and who are controlled by political prostitutes to tell us what is discrimination and what isn't... this is APPALLING jurisprudence.

When people speak of equality (well it used to be before liberals became fanatically anti-white and anti-western) they generally mean that people should be treated THE SAME WAY. It had to do with repealing laws or statutes that PREVENTED or barred certain minority groups and women from certain opportunities. But in canada, our anti-discrimination laws are DISCRIMINATORY THEMSELVES! They're all about treating people differently. They recognise identified groups as belonging to separate legal categories, and thus violates the concept of equality under the law.

But don't expect lefties and "Canadiens" to get it though... they are locked into their current crusade against civilization anyways.

You're pathetic (EVEN MORE THAN ARGUS IS!). White people hire most of the time, so they won't refuse you because you're white!!!

How many black people hire vs How many white people Hire? There's your answer.

If someone is not happy to be served by a Black woman, he can leave, he has the right to do so and he has the right to dislike Blacks, but he cannot discriminate them.

[lictor616]

You're pathetic (EVEN MORE THAN ARGUS IS!). White people hire most of the time, so they won't refuse you because you're white!!!

How many black people hire vs How many white people Hire? There's your answer.

If someone is not happy to be served by a Black woman, he can leave, he has the right to do so and he has the right to dislike Blacks, but he cannot discriminate them.

do you think this constitutes a suitable reply?

don't you even know that affirmative action works specifically on WHITE employers (coercing them to hire NON-WHITES)? What I wrote was precisely accurate to what the law stipulates.

[monkeyman]

do you think this constitutes a suitable reply?

don't you even know that affirmative action works specifically on WHITE employers (coercing them to hire NON-WHITES)? What I wrote was precisely accurate to what the law stipulates.

You live in your little world mate and you have silly arguments. Of course there are more Black employers in Canada than White ones!!!

You should get with Argus.

[lictor616]

You live in your little world mate and you have silly arguments. Of course there are more Black employers in Canada than White ones!!!

You should get with Argus.

does affirmative action enforce race based quotas for employers? yes or no?

The answer must be "YES"

That's not a silly argument... its a simple uncontroversial statement of fact. THE LAW IN CANADA enforces racial quotas in palces of business which specifically DISPLACE AND DISPOSSESS WHITES. How can you stand here talking about "those damned racist white employers" when you know full well that the state ENFORCES PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF MINORITIES?

seems like you're living in your own little word of denial... sorry

[M.Dancer]

THE LAW IN CANADA enforces racial quotas in palces of business which specifically DISPLACE AND DISPOSSESS WHITES.

Please be a good little stormfronter and post thie law.

I suspect like a lot of your content, it is fictitious.

[lictor616]

Please be a good little stormfronter and post thie law.

I suspect like a lot of your content, it is fictitious.

here it is:

THE QUÉBEC CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS

AND FREEDOMS

(R.S.Q.C-12)

Reproduction

---- snip-----------

18.1/

"No one may, in an employment application form or employment interview, require a person to give

information regarding any ground mentioned in section 10 UNLESS the information is useful for the

application of section 20 or the implementation of an affirmative action program in existence at the time of

the application."

http://www.mcgill.ca/files/equity_diversity/charter.pdf (page 4 of 20)

(if you're wondering what section 10 is:

10/ "Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms,

without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, colour, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil

status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin,

social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap.

Discrimination exists where such a distinction, exclusion or preference has the effect of nullifying or

impairing such right."

In other words, no one is allowed to be treated differently UNLESS one is a minority, in such an arrangement, affirmative action programs are in place to ensure that blacks, homosexuals etc get PREFERRENTIAL TREATMENT over "white swine" (i'm paraphrasing here a bit).. here you have it ENCODED in our Charter of "rights" and freedoms...

lemme guess though... you'll reject this out of hand and tell me that some KKK website was also talking about this very subject .. which makes it null and void... right dancer?

Edited August 25, 2009 by lictor616

[monkeyman]

does affirmative action enforce race based quotas for employers? yes or no?

The answer must be "YES"

That's not a silly argument... its a simple uncontroversial statement of fact. IN CANADA enfTHE LAW orces racial quotas in palces of business which specifically DISPLACE AND DISPOSSESS WHITES. How can you stand here talking about "those damned racist white employers" when you know full well that the state ENFORCES PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF MINORITIES?

seems like you're living in your own little word of denial... sorry

YEAH, IT'S TRUE, YOU KNOW WHY THAT LAW EXISTS? It's because if it didn't Ethnic minorities would have MORE DIFFICULTIES TO FIND A JOB BECAUSE OF THEIR COLOUR OF SKIN OR NAME OR RELIGION OR WHATEVER.

You're dumb mate, if you think that quotas are there to reduce the chances of White Canadians to get a job, you're in your little world.

And the Quotas are not everywhere!

[M.Dancer]

here it is:

THE QUÉBEC CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS

AND FREEDOMS

(R.S.Q.C-12)

Reproduction

---- snip-----------

lemme guess though... you'll reject this out of hand and tell me that some KKK website was also talking about this very subject .. which makes it null and void... right dancer?

I suspected as much.....you can't find a thing to support your idiotic assertion that:

THE LAW IN CANADA enforces racial quotas in palces of business which specifically DISPLACE AND DISPOSSESS WHITES.

The exclusin is very specific...

20. A distinction, exclusion or preference based on the aptitudes or qualifications required for an

employment, or justified by the charitable, philanthropic, religious, political or educational nature of a nonprofit

institution or of an institution devoted exclusively to the well-being of an ethnic group, is deemed

non-discriminatory.

In oither words I we had true affirmative action in Canada you could start a group and hire only slack jawed cretins to protect the rights of slack jawed cretins.

[M.Dancer]

Lictor is idiotic enough to think that the Phillipine Canadian association has hiring practices that exclude whites....

[lictor616]

YEAH, IT'S TRUE, YOU KNOW WHY THAT LAW EXISTS? It's because if it didn't Ethnic minorities would have MORE DIFFICULTIES TO FIND A JOB BECAUSE OF THEIR COLOUR OF SKIN OR NAME OR RELIGION OR WHATEVER.

You're dumb mate, if you think that quotas are there to reduce the chances of White Canadians to get a job, you're in your little world.

And the Quotas are not everywhere!

wow what a duh moment...

If the affirmative action anti-white law would'nt exist ... minorities wouldn't be preferred candidates for jobs... gee really? ya think?

And you're the dumb one, if you're actually sitting there telling me that a PROGRAM/LAW whose sole purpose is to TAKE JOBS AND GIVE THEM TO MINORITIES INSTEAD of WHITES are somehow "not" taking jobs away from whites and therefore dispossessing them, then you're either dumb or taking us for saps.

I mean the sheer absurdity to believe that taking jobs or privileges from Group A to compensate Groups B and C, in order to correct some real or imagined injustice, is somehow not detrimental to group A and somehow shouldn't breed resentment in group A is simply lunacy on stilts.

Canadian law was made to treat people AS INDIVIDUALS. Real Canadians are INDIVIDUALS and expect to be treated as such, they cannot be dealt with merely as nonentities (the way people were treated in Soviet Russia). If the aim was really colour blindness especially in the work environment, then THE ONLY aspects to hire a candidate must involve determining if an individual has the training, knowledge, ability, honesty and integrity required to perform the task effectively; skin colour alone cannot guarantee this.

But earnest do gooding liberals insist that it should... and they call US the racists... go figure.

[M.Dancer]

And you're the dumb one, if you're actually sitting there telling me that a PROGRAM/LAW whose sole purpose is to TAKE JOBS AND GIVE THEM TO MINORITIES INSTEAD of WHITES are somehow "not" taking jobs away from whites and therefore dispossessing them, then you're either dumb or taking us for saps.

I'm not sure if you willfully distort reality or you're just stupid....especially seeing that you just pantsed yourself...

[monkeyman]

wow what a duh moment...

If the affirmative action anti-white law would'nt exist ... minorities wouldn't be preferred candidates for jobs... gee really? ya think?

And you're the dumb one, if you're actually sitting there telling me that a PROGRAM/LAW whose sole purpose is to TAKE JOBS AND GIVE THEM TO MINORITIES INSTEAD of WHITES are somehow "not" taking jobs away from whites and therefore dispossessing them, then you're either dumb or taking us for saps.

I mean the sheer absurdity to believe that taking jobs or privileges from Group A to compensate Groups B and C, in order to correct some real or imagined injustice, is somehow not detrimental to group A and somehow shouldn't breed resentment in group A is simply lunacy on stilts.

Canadian law was made to treat people AS INDIVIDUALS. Real Canadians are INDIVIDUALS and expect to be treated as such, they cannot be dealt with merely as nonentities (the way people were treated in Soviet Russia). If the aim was really colour blindness especially in the work environment, then THE ONLY aspects to hire a candidate must involve determining if an individual has the training, knowledge, ability, honesty and integrity required to perform the task effectively; skin colour alone cannot guarantee this.

But earnest do gooding liberals insist that it should... and they call US the racists... go figure.

To make you happy, will send all immigrants to Iqualuit or Yukon so they can work there and build some machines.

[lictor616]

I suspected as much.....you can't find a thing to support your idiotic assertion that:

The exclusin is very specific...

In oither words I we had true affirmative action in Canada you could start a group and hire only slack jawed cretins to protect the rights of slack jawed cretins.

i can't believe you,re actually debating that Affirmative action.. i.e: a program that ensures that businesses select a suitable number of minorities AS QUOTAS, combined with the ACTUAL WRITTEN LAW of the Charter of Rigths And Freedoms is not concrete proof that the law does in fact enforce racial quotas...

I mean assuming something short of total obtuseness what more do you need? ITS IN THE FREAKING CHARTER DANCER.. right there staring you in the face saying: "WE'RE ALL EQUAL .. .BUUUUUUT "MINORITIES ARE TO HAVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN HIRING AND FIRING and ADMISSIONS TO UNIVERSITIES"

more examples? The Richmond Fire Department had to apply to a B.C. Human Rights panel to get permission for a “diversity” plan which allows 75% of new jobs in its fire department to go to visible minorities and women. The plan will last from 2007 to 2010.

yeah dancer... whatever you say.. no quotas whatsoever. yup... whad di I say (reject out of hand)..

"White males need not apply"

Internal e-mail reveals hiring ban at Public Works

Tom Blackwell

National Post

Saturday, November 19, 2005

"A major federal department has temporarily banned the hiring of able-bodied white men in an unusual move critics say could spark a backlash against the very disadvantaged groups it is meant to help.

Managers in the Public Works department must hire only visible minorities, women, aboriginals and the disabled, except with written permission from their superiors, David Marshall, the deputy minister, ordered in an e-mail circulated yesterday."

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does allow some discrimination by government to aid groups it identifies as being disadvantaged, said Robb Macpherson, a labour lawyer with the firm McCarthy Tetrault."

[M.Dancer]

i can't believe you,re actually debating that Affirmative action.. i.e: a program that ensures that businesses ....

Businesses? I can't believe you're that stupid or that dishonest. (actually I can)

What the P&L statement look like for the Fire Department?

[lictor616]

Businesses? I can't believe you're that stupid or that dishonest. (actually I can)

What the P&L statement look like for the Fire Department?

substitute businesses for "Workplace" M."willfully"Obtuse.

and how funny is that... a 75% non-white racial quota for a fire department...

and this is all backed up by the charter!

And you still maintain that its actually non-whites who are discriminated against!?!?!

Can you imagine if a police department say in Dryden ontario, came out with a statement that "since Dryden is 98% white, we will change our recruitment policy to recruit at least 75% white males" ... how would you or any other liberal react to that?

My guess is that there would be riots and law suits.

but in our country, whites are EXPECTED to be scoffed at and considered second class citizens... so who cares... you don't even see the brazen double standard... and still refuse to acknowledge (despite what EVEN THE CHARTER SAYS) the obvious, PALPABLE anti-white bias that permeates Canadian society.

[lictor616]

Businesses? I can't believe you're that stupid or that dishonest. (actually I can)

What the P&L statement look like for the Fire Department?

here's another instance of flagrant anti-white bias now in from the US:

Robert Reich: Obama's economic adviser says in this video that:

"I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. ...I have nothing against white male construction workers. I’m just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. … Criteria can be set so that the money does go to others, the long term unemployed minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals."

how's that for equality?

three cheers for Diversity people!

Edited August 25, 2009 by lictor616

[monkeyman]

here's another instance of flagrant anti-white bias now in from the US:

Robert Reich: Obama's economic adviser says in this video that:

"I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers. ...I have nothing against white male construction workers. I’m just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. … Criteria can be set so that the money does go to others, the long term unemployed minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals."

how's that for equality?

three cheers for Diversity people!

Your arguments are bull shit, because the fact is that if someone is from an ethnic minority, he will have more difficulites because he's black, blue, red, yellow or whatever. But that's fine for you I guess

[lictor616]

Your arguments are bull shit, because the fact is that if someone is from an ethnic minority, he will have more difficulites because he's black, blue, red, yellow or whatever. But that's fine for you I guess

huh? a black person will have more difficulty to get a job EVEN if candidacy is for blacks only?

Am I getting you right? You're saying that even if a policy of outright institutional racism is adopted... where whites are BARRED from applying for certain jobs or privileges for NO OTHER REASON OTHER THEN THEIR RACE... and you're still saying that minorities are disadvantaged?

What would it take then? extermination of white people outright? Taxing whites an extra 40% of their income to give to non-whites because of bias (real or imagined)? tell me when does this stop? when do minorities stop being the victims?

[ZenOps]

If you really really want the sad truth right from the Canadian Constitution Section 16.1 amended 1993 to include:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_16.1_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

"The English linguistic community and the French linguistic community in New Brunswick have equality of status and equal rights and privileges"

Or inotherwords as of 1993 in NB, French people were no longer to be legally considered or treated as second class citizens. There have been similar provincial laws made in Quebec. But as of 2009, no asian spoken language (or even German, Russian, or anything other than French) has been made "equal" to English. Equal Right and Privelegdes of course includes right to freely associate in linguistic groups including schools.

Now

That law is presently only applicable to spoken language. If you have an Asian or black person that speaks perfect English you are not allowed to bar entry to a public establishment. However - you are allowed to stop (or at least detain until you can find an interpreter) a white person who does not speak English or French from a public establishment. Tazered polish guy at airport - prime example.

The older Germans in Calgary really love this law, rofl. WWII hate is just a flowin.

Edited December 7, 2009 by ZenOps

[ZenOps]

I don't think they're worried about fights so much as gang fights, shoot-outs and drive-bys.

Street gangs in Canada are virtually all ethnic. In Central Canada it's mostly Blacks, in the West, Asians and Natives.

Its mainly because of the Urban and Rural laws of this country a century ago.

Asians mostly Chinese were never allowed to own quarter sections of land in Canada, in fact they were barely allowed stay in the country. Most cities have "Chinatowns" because they were actually the original founders of the cities because they were not allowed to farm. White people tended to come back into the cities much later and built around the Chinese core, after they figured out that they could make more money in a symbiotic close realtionship with the cities than trying to scrape a living off land that has a killing frost in June (Alberta 2009)

The streets (as in a city) are mostly ethnic - because thats the way it all was originally planned. In general "White" people never wanted to be in or anywhere near the cities (up until this century or so) Make up yours minds, lol.

If a white incity owner wants to stop people like Asians - well I don't know what can actually be done about it. But hes definitely not going to be making as much money.

At least that is my take. And As for the drive by shootings in Chinatown(s) I blame people like Rob Anders who believe all people who are not white or religious, are terrorists and deserving of at least jailtime. If Rob Anders were not our minister of War (veterans affairs) I truely believe he would be the one shooting down people in the streets (instead of hired lackeys) It seems he has had his role shifted from sucker punching Chinese people in the Streets to calling Black people in power as "terrorists" back to sucker punching Tsuu Tina #145 on the reserve to get them to move out.

As my Chinese Grandfather would have said "We never had any real violence until we got encircled" and "Why the heck to all these (white) people all of a sudden want to be our friends?)

Edited December 7, 2009 by ZenOps

[Oleg Bach]

How can you deal with Asian gangs when you tolerated the distruction of the natives via alchol...as long as a profit was being turned you turned a blind eye to the problem - Asian gangs eventually like Anglo gangs become establishment - and they buy those big houses - and those nice cars - and that profit is hard turn away from..or turn a blind eye towards. Drugs - booze violenced of all sorts and prostitution have the effect of pumping money into the banking system - stop taking their money and starve them out - laundering of cash within our so-called legit system must stop..and then they will stop and maybe leave once we have made in unprofitable to operate in our nation.

[Argus]

YEAH, IT'S TRUE, YOU KNOW WHY THAT LAW EXISTS? It's because if it didn't Ethnic minorities would have MORE DIFFICULTIES TO FIND A JOB BECAUSE OF THEIR COLOUR OF SKIN OR NAME OR RELIGION OR WHATEVER.

By "whatever" I'm assuming you mean because they have few job skills, don't speak English, and have little cultural concept of things like "punctuality".

Studies of ethnic groups and their success rate in Canada show that skin pigmentation has virtually nothing to do with their economic performance. People from certain parts of Asia fare very well indeed, while people from other parts of Asia fare comparitively poorly. Likewise, Blacks from certain countries greatly outperform their counterparts from others (generally Africans do better than Carribean immigrants despite the latter's linguistic advantage).

As with everything else you post, you know virtually nothing about the topic you are shrieking and blathering about.

[Argus]

Its mainly because of the Urban and Rural laws of this country a century ago.

I'm not sure which part of your ludicrous nonsense to respond to so thought I'd just erase it all and put in a general suggestion you examine a few documents about the growth of Canadian municipalities and crime. Nothing you said has any relation to reality. The reasons behind our current crop of ethnic street gangs are all quite modern and they only really developed in the last few decades.

[Griz]

I'm not sure which part of your ludicrous nonsense to respond to so thought I'd just erase it all and put in a general suggestion you examine a few documents about the growth of Canadian municipalities and crime. Nothing you said has any relation to reality. The reasons behind our current crop of ethnic street gangs are all quite modern and they only really developed in the last few decades.

The first gangs were railroad gangs: chinese, FNS, and prisoners--yep that's right prison gangs. They needed to build the railroad for all the incoming boatpeople from Europe. After that they stayed in prison towns and produced off spring who generations later write into forums like this

[ZenOps]

The first gangs were railroad gangs: chinese, FNS, and prisoners--yep that's right prison gangs. They needed to build the railroad for all the incoming boatpeople from Europe. After that they stayed in prison towns and produced off spring who generations later write into forums like this

Sure, I'll admit the first generation of Chinese were hardly saints.

By todays standards they would probably be considered "Human trafficers", of which Chinese of that era (1885) most definitely did illegal transport both Chinese and Europeans into Canada.

I don't think people truely understand the level of control the British had over Canada way back when.. Every non-English speaking European was basically stopped from immigration. If you got rejected by the "official" British immigration, you had one other choice - go to the Chinese and get passage to Canada from them, many German speaking Albertans took up the Chinese route.

One of the reasons I think the British setup the "Exclusion Act" or "Head tax" was because there were too many Chinese and non-English speaking Europeans entering Canada through Chinese transports (Of which the local British Farmers were much against at the time, a protectionist policy for the wheat and fur trade)

The reason Chinese could do this of course is because they have ships capable of oceanic transport. Commercial airflights did not become affordable to anyone but the elite and royalty until sometime after 1950. As of today, most freighters of that size are still Chinese owned. And of course the British in Canada had and still have zero oceanic protection (no Submarines to stop illegal immigration)

Why did the Chinese transport Europeans into Canada? Unofficially it was to gain access to a quarter section of land put under a white persons name after the laws would hopefully change sometime in the future to allow foreign (non British) ownership (of which the Wind mobile Egyptian guy is an idiot for not creating a shell British company to do business in Canada)

As of today it has yet to materialize. Sad how even today - an Egyptian man spending $440 million can be rejected from doing business in Canada because its more than 50% funded by a "foreign entity". I don't remember Sir Richard Branson (Virgin mobile) ever having any problems setting up shop.

Chinese have a saying "You can't buy land." And if the Tsuu Tina rejection $250 million for the quarter of Calgary is any indication, it still holds true to this day.

PS: The first few generations of whites in US (and to a lesser extent Canada) were hardly saints either. The 250 million+ natives that were genocided would probably attest to that (if they were alive that is)

Edited December 19, 2009 by ZenOps