Harper hails opening of grand Hindu temple

[Renegade]

The petition is of no concern to me.

Then why bother to quote it? Did you sign the petition? Why or why not?

What is important to me are the issues, which I agree with 110%.

If you don't think the issues are significant or at least debatable, then I would say this makes you intolerant of the truth and demonstrates again your bias against 'White, English speaking, Christians' and their concerns against mass immigration.

I am willing to debate or accept positions based upon evidence. You present no evidence except anecdotal evidence which is as good as no evidence at all.

There are points on immigration which I acutally agree with you on. For example, I agree that Canada doesn't "need" as many immigrants as it takes and can and should cut back on the number. I agree that the many times the standard of immigrants accepted is too low. I agree that the immigration system needs radical change.

However what I don't agree with you on, and you have presented no evidence of, is that WECC culture is in peril because of immigration. And, what I mean by culture is language, religion, and the ability to celebrate traditions.

Edited August 15, 2007 by Renegade

[Leafless]

Actually even your cite has enough command of the English language to call them "temporary foreign workers" rather than "Temporary immigrant workers".

Definition of immigrant='come as a permanent resident to a country other than ones native land'.

I see no fault in describing 'temporary foreign workers' as ' temporary immigrant workers'.

I use this description for a prime reason, which allows me to to total 'immigrants, along with 'temporary immigrant workers' to avoid confusion in the number of individuals entering Canada from foreign lands.

In this particular case we add 260,000 immigrants plus 120,000 'temporary immigrant workers giving us a grand total of 380,000 individuals per year, who have one way or another, can all be considered a burden, on, in particular 'housing' and other important concerns listed to what you refer to as a 'White supremacist group' with important issues that ARE NOT BEING ADDRESSED BY OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

[Leafless]

Then why bother to quote it? Did you sign the petition? Why or why not?

I quoted it for the issue's that are near identical to my concerns and whether or not I signed the petition is my business.

What are you anyways, KGB?

However what I don't agree with you on, and you have presented no evidence of, is that WECC culture is in peril because of immigration. And, what I mean by culture is language, religion, and the ability to celebrate traditions.

I did give evidence how the federal government intervened by outlawing certain parts of Christianity and its related traditions in our schools.

But the important concern of the WECC culture is an area relating to the political transformation of objectives which could lead Canada down a different political route, to the formation of different political objectives not compatible with Western culture.

This will be a major problem as the ethnic population continues to increase.

An example of this is the previous attempt in Ontario by Muslims to implement Sharia Law which if proved successful would have set a precedent not only in Ontario but all of Canada.

[Renegade]

Definition of immigrant='come as a permanent resident to a country other than ones native land'.

I see no fault in describing 'temporary foreign workers' as ' temporary immigrant workers'.

I use this description for a prime reason, which allows me to to total 'immigrants, along with 'temporary immigrant workers' to avoid confusion in the number of individuals entering Canada from foreign lands.

In this particular case we add 260,000 immigrants plus 120,000 'temporary immigrant workers giving us a grand total of 380,000 individuals per year, who have one way or another, can all be considered a burden, on, in particular 'housing' and other important concerns listed to what you refer to as a 'White supremacist group' with important issues that ARE NOT BEING ADDRESSED BY OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Since you would like to add apples and oranges together, why not add the number of tourists visiting Canada, call them immigrants too, and come up with an even bigger number of people who are a burden on Canda.

BTW, It wasn't me who first referred them as 'White supremacist group' , I beleive it was Ontario's Hate Crime Unit.

[Renegade]

I quoted it for the issue's that are near identical to my concerns and whether or not I signed the petition is my business.

What are you anyways, KGB?

Sure, it's your business. Since you are so open in your support of the sames issues, I didn't really think it was a matter of any confidentiality if you actually signed the petition. My only reason for asking was to understand if you so agreed with the issues, were you going to actually do something about it, or have you just been posturing?

I did give evidence how the federal government intervened by outlawing certain parts of Christianity and its related traditions in our schools.

Yes you did point that out, but there is no requirement in WECC culture that it must be practiced in schools, so you haven't shown that such a restriction actually damaged WECC culture.

But the important concern of the WECC culture is an area relating to the political transformation of objectives which could lead Canada down a different political route, to the formation of different political objectives not compatible with Western culture.

This will be a major problem as the ethnic population continues to increase.

Personanlly I don't think this is a cultural problem so much as it is a political issue. To sum it up, you will be outnumbered and you don't like it. OK, I understand it as a concern, but given that ethnics are a diverse group, each with a different set of concerns, IMV the kind of socety we will end up with is one which is tolerant to diveresity. I don't have a problem with that, I'm sorry you do.

The net result is that WECC culture is given the same consideration as any other culture. Not more prviledged, not less. Personally I think that is the way it should be. I understand you don't, and think that WECC is somehow better than the rest because it is the culture of the majority.

An example of this is the previous attempt in Ontario by Muslims to implement Sharia Law which if proved successful would have set a precedent not only in Ontario but all of Canada.

I agree, this would be a dangerous precedent and I'm glad it wasn't implemented. However, it woudl be just as dangerous if Catholic Law was make the basis of "legal" statutes in the province. That is why I condemn any religous basis for legal statutes in our society.

[guyser]

One goes away for a few days only to come back and see that the same bunch of half truths , disinformation and lies are being spread. Yes leafless, I am talking about you.

Asked to describe this WECC culture and you cannot answer. You claim to have but not to be found anywhere I could see.All anyone gets is this deflection and typical non-answer from one who cannot answer a simple question.

Leadless

I have answered this question many times from the ( hate the White crowd) in different thread and am not doing it again.

It is hard to believe, someone who claims to be knowledgeable, would not know what culture is pertaining to ones country.

You pull info from the backside , no wait, I will apoligize, you take info from various sources then blatently change it. I am glad you think we are dumb. Unfortunately we are not , leaving serious doubt to where you fit on the IQ scale. Let me explain....

You said

Leafless

This situation will worsen yearly as 330,000 immigrants arrive yearly with no federal plan to properly accommodate these adult masses.

...not once , not twice.....and even worse you fudge around the facts like it nothing...

Leafless

So when Paul Martin was PM Canada's population is about the same as it is to-day 33 million and 1% of 33 million is 330,000 immigrants the Liberals allowed into the country.

We can thank Mr. Harper for the decrease down to 260,000 and hopefully as the suggest reduce that even further to 20% of that 260.000 immigrants.

And the above two cites were YOURS not mine nor anyone elses.

Your cite states that something in the neighbourhood of 250,000 immigrants came in. You obviously have diffulculty with the terms "target" and actual. An analogy would be you are trying to hit the bullseye with the dart (immigrants =330,000) but your aim was a little off and you hit double 20's. (immigrant actuals =260,000 more or less)

IOW, the govt missed their target. You should be happy.

But no, to save face you invoke migrant workers, and lable them "immigrants" . Yet when shown they are not immigrants but seasonal (migrant) workers you brilliantly tell us that 260g+120G = 380,000.

Now should one not believe me , then read , in your own words what you said...

Leafless-

I see no fault in describing 'temporary foreign workers' as ' temporary immigrant workers'.

I use this description for a prime reason, which allows me to to total 'immigrants, along with 'temporary immigrant workers' to avoid confusion in the number of individuals entering Canada from foreign lands.

In this particular case we add 260,000 immigrants plus 120,000 'temporary immigrant workers giving us a grand total of 380,000 individuals per year, who have one way or another, can all be considered a burden, on, in particular 'housing' and other important concerns listed to what you refer to as a 'White supremacist group' with important issues that ARE NOT BEING ADDRESSED BY OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Migrant workers are a burden on housing? Well , funny that , you are probably correct , but trust me when I say it was a mistake to be correct on this. Migrant workers, for the most part, live on the farms in housing supplied by the farm , in conditions you would never live.

They are no burden on "housing" as you put it, meaning the general population housing. They cannot access social services either.

Moving on , you have made numerous ethnic bashings to posters here , especially when you are cornered , or hoisted on your own petard. It seems to be a common trait. You did it to me in another thread, calling me a fag or gaylover or some ridiculous thing. The you called me a brown skinned immigrant as if that could insult me. Point in fact it does no such thing , but it does guarantee that your message is relegated to stink pile as pretty much worthless.

It is the graspings of a desperate debator when the opposition lowers itself to call people silly names trying to upset them. We get it, you are upset and resort to this. Okay.

Just to remind you.....

Time will tell my little brown friend

and then

Another personal attack from an arrogant little brown boy with a 'hate the Whites' chip on his shoulder

followed by...and this one is a beaut. Note the wording

Intelligent people never belittle in the fashion you do which indicates brown boy, you have an inferiority complex.

..but lets keep going shall we ? I like this one the best.

You go play with your pink friends with your word games while you are tipping glasses of white wine and giggling over who trumps who with seldom used words.

..oh stop....the "pink friends" , could you mean gays? Ouch that one had to hurt its target .(you are insulting a poster for using words you dont understand and your response it to call him gay? Oh my.

Then there is the housing issue you have a problem with. You "stay away" from real estate because their is undue pressure on the market. Call your parents, or some sort of mentor, and ask if they think real estate will be going up in price. Ask if you think you could make some money in the RE market.

Dude, the market rises in price because of pressure, this means you make money. Lots of it with the right area and smart speculation. But no,you bury your head in the sand and keep going broke. I really dont care.

Ahm but the piece de resistance is using a racist white supremist website as a cite for a poll. Even funnier is your response when called on it.

Leafless

The petition is of no concern to me.

What is important to me are the issues, which I agree with 110%.

If you don't think the issues are significant or at least debatable, then I would say this makes you intolerant of the truth and demonstrates again your bias against 'White, English speaking, Christians' and their concerns against mass immigration

So...you call the other poster intolerant of the truth because he mocks your "smarts" for using a web site for the CDN Heritage Alliance? Again, oh my.

It is painfully obvious you are a firm believer of treating the immigrant as a second class .They are , according to you , the scourge of this nation. That is a shame . A true shame.

Your parents were immigrants, or theirs were , what ever the case may be.

Your arguements are full of holes that one could drive a truck through. Very little of substance , and when substance is proffered , it invariably shoots you in the foot.

Non-sensical whimperings do not do you any good.

And lastly, I am insulted that you would call someone else "the most arrogant poster" you have encountered. Did you forget to say this week?

Because three weeks ago you said it was my title. Come on man, be a buttercup and give me back my title. Maybe Renegade and I can pass the "tiara of arrogance" back and forth. You know, when we are sitting with our "pink friends" and having some "white wine" (truth is we prefer Chardonnay)

[guyser]

Damn, I forgot to include this one. Lets look at this one too.

Well then that makes you a moron, population growth is a main factor and immigration does and causes a great number of undesireable things:

$ Immigration $

Canadian Social Programs Suffering

Got to give credit where due. There is a strain on the system, but I highly doubt to the magnitude you believe but nevertheless.

Health Care Deterioration

From day one, immigrants are payers into the system via taxes and stipulations on access via "sponsored" relatives. So no go on this one.

Infectious Diseases

Since all immigrants are screened for such , what point are you trying to make. (psst, all are tested for AIDS and such)

*The Housing Issue*

There is no issue at all. Private firms build houses and anyone with the dinero can buy them .You have not given even one shred of evidence to rebutt this.

Canadian Public Education

They sign Junior up at school and away he goes. He/she learns what your kids are learning , albeit better since most spelling bees and major awards go to immigrant children. They strive , get over it.

Canadian Roads and Highways

What the ..? Are immigrants eating the asphalt? Living on the thoroughfares ? Oh maybe you mean because they drive on them? If so....well , never mind. This one is what is called a no brainer.

Immigration and Crime

Care to cite? I dont think so.

Canada, a Terrorist Haven?

Dont forget we also caused the big blackout in August 2004.

Lies they Tell Us

Who is " they" ? Liberals, CPC's. NDP's? or the immigrants?

[Renegade]

guyser, great summary. It confirms to me, what should be obvious to anyone reading the thread. What I've heard from Leafless is a lot of his opinions, which he has been unable to substintiate with any evidence. His cites are primarily others who share his opinion. Not surprisingly, he seems to share the same opinion as white supremacist groups.

BTW, he left open the possibility that you too share the title as "most arrogant poster" as he only accorded me the privildge of being "one of the most arrogant". I'm still vieing for sole possetion of the title

[Leafless]

His cites are primarily others who share his opinion. Not surprisingly, he seems to share the same opinion as white supremacist groups.

Not surprisingly, you and your lefty buddies seem to share and support the same opinion and political actions as that 'French supremacist', the same guy that gave us that racist, discriminating, social engineered, (English speaking biased) Charter.

[Renegade]

Not surprisingly, you and your lefty buddies seem to share and support the same opinion and political actions as that 'French supremacist', the same guy that gave us that racist, discriminating, social engineered, (English speaking biased) Charter.

No I actually don't in most cases. Do you have proof of your allegation?

BTW, I assume it is only your opinion that Trudeau is a 'French supremacist'. Do you have any cite that unbiased sources would classsify him as such?

There are many places I disagree with Trudeau. I do agree with him though that everyone's rights need to be protected/

BTW, your rebuttals and arguments are becoming more and more desperate.

[Leafless]

No I actually don't in most cases. Do you have proof of your allegation?

BTW, I assume it is only your opinion that Trudeau is a 'French supremacist'. Do you have any cite that unbiased sources would classsify him as such?

Traitorous actions based on language and culture speaks for itself.

There are many places I disagree with Trudeau. I do agree with him though that everyones rights need to be protected

That is the whole problem, everyones rights are all constitutionally protected , embedded in our constitution, with ongoing expansion of these rights as determined case by case by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Do you not see and understand how undemocratic and racist the Charter really is and is emulating legislation originating from some cheap little banana republic.

BTW, your rebuttals and arguments are becoming more and more desperate.

I am simply defending your 'White supremacist allegations'.

Your allegations are becoming more and more comical.

We know who the real 'White supremacist are' in Canada.

[Renegade]

Traitorous actions based on language and culture speaks for itself.

IOW, you have no evidence. Actually if I remember Trudeau was not particualrly liked by French-Canadian nationalists, despite having French-Canadian ancestory. If Trudeau has really been a 'French supremacist' as you claim, I suspect Quebec would long have been a sovereign nation by now.

That is the whole problem, everyones rights are all constitutionally protected , embedded in our constitution, with ongoing expansion of these rights as determined case by case by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Of course, and that is as it should be. The judicary is a separate branch from the legislature purposefully. It is their job to make such rulings. If you don't like the system, you can blame England, because it is one of those "White English" traditions inherited from them. BTW, the system is very similar in the US where the Supreme Court interprets on a case by case basis which laws conform to their bill of rights. Do you have an example of a civilized country which works differently?

Do you not see and understand how undemocratic and racist the Charter really is and is emulating legislation originating from some cheap little banana republic.

A free system must respect the fundamental rights of eveyone. It cannot simply let majority vote override fundamental rights. If you read my tag line and understand its implications, then you will understand what I mean.

If your idea of democracy is simple majority rule, what stops 51% of the population from stripping the freedom, property, and fundamental rights of the 49% minority?

I am simply defending your 'White supremacist allegations'.

You don't need my allegations. Your own statements and actions positively demonstrate discrimminatory and intolerant attitudes.

Your allegations are becoming more and more comical.

Really, how is that possible when the allegations havn't chnged since the beginning?

We know who the real 'White supremacist are' in Canada.

And who is that? If you are implying that I'm racist, show some evidence. I have asked you this before and you have failed to respond. Point out quotes which I've made which demonstrate or imply racism.

[Leafless]

IOW, you have no evidence. Actually if I remember Trudeau was not particualrly liked by French-Canadian nationalists, despite having French-Canadian ancestory.

Trudeau was a French nationalist, holding their views and he fought for long term benefits for Quebec:

In all this, Trudeau was really being pro-church and anti-democracy and anti-liberalism. Trudeau thought liberalism was British. Trudeau felt World War II was a British war. He opposed the war because he felt it was helping Britain at French Canada's expense.

Trudeau even founded a secret society to come up with his dream of a French Catholic Laurentie. Trudeau also read Trotsky on how to stage a revolution to get that Laurentian state.

Still there is a line that must be drawn between Trudeau as a fascist and simply Trudeau as a French Canadian nationalist. Trudeau had no room for the Anglos and the ethnics in his Laurentie; this is unlike Levesque who did make room for the Anglos and ethnics in his separate Quebec.

Trudeau as anti-Semite is certainly overblown. Trudeau did like the writings of corporatist and anti-Semitic writers like Charles Maurras, but nowhere in the book does Trudeau rant about the Jews.

Trudeau simply regarded the Jews as outsiders, as did all of the French Canadian elite. Trudeau certainly did not participate in the anti-Jewish, anti-conscription riots of the separatist Bloc Populaire.

If Trudeau has really been a 'French supremacist' as you claim, I suspect Quebec would long have been a sovereign nation by now.

What does that have to do with being a 'White French supremacist'?

Trudeau's goal was to keep Quebec in Canada as a distinct French nationalistic society and he accomplished this goal with his Charter.

Of course, and that is as it should be. The judicary is a separate branch from the legislature purposefully. It is their job to make such rulings. If you don't like the system, you can blame England, because it is one of those "White English" traditions inherited from them. BTW, the system is very similar in the US where the Supreme Court interprets on a case by case basis which laws conform to their bill of rights.

Americans vote via referendums relating to proposed amendments to their constitution.

A free system must respect the fundamental rights of everyone.

Fundamental rights in Canada have been transformed, totally unrealistically by an undemocratic Charter that places no barriers on the horrendus cost of doing this.

This type of legislated artificially enhanced social engineering is totally unacceptable in any kind of democratic society.

It cannot simply let majority vote override fundamental rights. If you read my tag line and understand its implications, then you will understand what I mean.

If your idea of democracy is simple majority rule, what stops 51% of the population from stripping the freedom, property, and fundamental rights of the 49% minority?

In a democratic system everyone gets to vote including all so called minorities on important issues relating to the constitution.

This does happen in Canada since Canada badly lacks democratic initiatives.

You don't need my allegations. Your own statements and actions positively demonstrate discrimminatory and intolerant attitudes.

Not really.

I question positively discriminatory and intolerant actions including racism built into our constitution.

And who is that? If you are implying that I'm racist, show some evidence. I have asked you this before and you have failed to respond. Point out quotes which I've made which demonstrate or imply racism.

The real White supremacist in Canada are of the French variety, who have implemented traitorous, costly, racist legislation into our constitution.

Before I can accuse you of being racist you will have to be honest and tell the truth, because it seems the only people in Canada that can be racist are 'Whites'.

Are you or are you not a visible minority? If you are not this would make you White.

Then I would have to ask you on what legal basis allows you to allege I am a bigot or racist???

[Leafless]

I did not include the link to Trudeau in the above post, so here it is:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20060613.html

[Renegade]

Trudeau was a French nationalist, holding their views and he fought for long term benefits for Quebec:

Agreed, there is evidence to show at during at least part of his life he was. But being a "French nationalist" is different than being a "French supremacist". Your previous allegation was that he was a French supremecist.

What does that have to do with being a 'White French supremacist'?

Trudeau's goal was to keep Quebec in Canada as a distinct French nationalistic society and he accomplished this goal with his Charter.

Supremacists will generally consider their race or group superior and thus will not work to integrate it with others not part of that group. Again you seem to use "nationalist" and "supremacist" interchangably.

Americans vote via referendums relating to proposed amendments to their constitution.

Completely untrue.

Here's how the Constitution was ratified:

On September 17, 1787, the Constitution was completed in Philadelphia at the Federal Convention, followed by a speech given by Benjamin Franklin who urged unanimity, although they decided they only needed nine states to ratify the constitution for it to go into effect. The Convention submitted the Constitution to the Congress of the Confederation, where it received approval according to Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation, but the resolution of the Congress submitting the Constitution to the states for ratification and agreeing with its provision for implementation upon ratification by nine states is contrary to Article 13, though eventually all thirteen states did ratify the Constitution, albeit after it took effect.

After fierce fights over ratification in many of the states, New Hampshire became that ninth state on June 21, 1788. Once the Congress of the Confederation received word of New Hampshire's ratification, it set a timetable for the start of operations under the Constitution, and, on March 4, 1789, the government under the Constitution began operations.

Not unlike Canada, in which after much negotiation, 9 of the 10 provinces signed the Charter. Curiously, the one province which you claim was so favoured, Quebec, refused to sign.

Here's how it is amended

Article Five describes the process necessary to amend the Constitution. It establishes two methods of proposing amendments: by Congress or by a national convention requested by the states. Under the first method, Congress can propose an amendment by a two-thirds vote (of a quorum, not necessarily of the entire body) of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. Under the second method, two-thirds (2/3) of the state legislatures may convene and "apply" to Congress to hold a national convention, whereupon Congress must call such a convention for the purpose of considering amendments. As of 2007, only the first method (proposal by Congress) has been used.

Once proposed—whether submitted by Congress or by a national convention—amendments must then be ratified by three-fourths (3/4) of the states to take effect. Article Five gives Congress the option of requiring ratification by state legislatures or by special conventions assembled in the states. The convention method of ratification has been used only once (to approve the 21st Amendment). Article Five currently places only one limitation on the amending power—that no amendment can deprive a state of its equal representation in the Senate without that state's consent.

United States Constitution

Fundamental rights in Canada have been transformed, totally unrealistically by an undemocratic Charter that places no barriers on the horrendus cost of doing this.

I'd like to see evidence of what you mean by this. What exactly is the government compelled by the Charter to provide which imposes a "horrendus cost".

In a democratic system everyone gets to vote including all so called minorities on important issues relating to the constitution.

Sure, having the right to vote doesn't prevent the overriding of rights. You didn't answer this question so I'll put it to you again:

what stops 51% of the population from stripping the freedom, property, and fundamental rights of the 49% minority?

I question positively discriminatory and intolerant actions including racism built into our constitution.

So do I, however you also seek to impose racism of a different kind. That which imposes the race and culture of the WECC on the minority.

Before I can accuse you of being racist you will have to be honest and tell the truth

Curious that you say that when you ALREADY have accused me of being a racist:

You have been labelling me with being a racist, a bigot, when all along it is you,

because it seems the only people in Canada that can be racist are 'Whites'.

And actually you are wrong. I have said before, that racism knows no racial boundries. Racism and bigotry is present in some form many other races besides "whites".

Are you or are you not a visible minority? If you are not this would make you White.

Sorry, buddy. I disclose as little personal informaiton as possible on a public forum. It matters not at all what race I am, it matters whether I have a position which is consistent and is backed by evidence. It is just as racist for a white person to think that "whites" are superior as for a black to think that "whites" are superior.

I have also found that disclosing personal informaiton detracts from the argument and becomes the basis for slurs rather than the argument itself. Besides that, your "brown boy" slurs, are so terribly amusing to me, that I have no interest in giving you confirmation one way or another.

Then I would have to ask you on what legal basis allows you to allege I am a bigot or racist???

I don't do it on any "legal basis" because I don't know nor have looked up the legal definition of racist. I do however know the common English usage of the term. Racism. Among those is "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races". You have already admitted intolerance and have had a multitude of statements indicating that the WECC should be intolerant of other groups.

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

BTW, this discussion has strayed considerably from the original scope of the thread. If you want to discuss a wide ranging set of topics from Trudeau, to the process of amending the charter, to what constitutes a racist, they I suggest that other threads are in order.

However, this is your thread, and if you want to continue this mish-mash discussion in this thread, I can't stop you.

Edited August 19, 2007 by Renegade

[Leafless]

Agreed, there is evidence to show at during at least part of his life he was. But being a "French nationalist" is different than being a "French supremacist".

A supremacist by definition from Concise Oxford Dictionary is, "an advocate of the supremacy of a particular group."

And relating to Trudeau's Charter, that is what the man is.

Your previous allegation was that he was a French supremecist.

And your previous allegation was, "Actually if I remember Trudeau was not particularly liked by French-Canadian nationalists, despite having French-Canadian ancestry."

Supremacists will generally consider their race or group superior and thus will not work to integrate it with others not part of that group.

Like Quebec whereas many in Quebec consider Quebec comes first and Canada second.

They never really did join any other group. Quebec in fact forced other groups to pay, to support Quebec nationalistic ideologies.

[Renegade]

A supremacist by definition from Concise Oxford Dictionary is, "an advocate of the supremacy of a particular group."

And relating to Trudeau's Charter, that is what the man is.

I disagree. While the Charter does mention certain groups considered "disadvantaged" it does not imply "supremacy" of those groups.

And your previous allegation was, "Actually if I remember Trudeau was not particularly liked by French-Canadian nationalists, despite having French-Canadian ancestry."

Yes I agree, it was an over-generalization on my part. Many French-Canadian nationalists did not like Trudeau because while PM, he did not promote Quebec separation and had a strong reaction to the FLQ crisis. I suppose that there were French-Canadian nationalists who didn't hae an issue with Trudeau.

Like Quebec whereas many in Quebec consider Quebec comes first and Canada second.

They never really did join any other group. Quebec in fact forced other groups to pay, to support Quebec nationalistic ideologies.

There is bigotry and racism in Quebec just as there is in the rest of Canada.

[Leafless]

I disagree. While the Charter does mention certain groups considered "disadvantaged" it does not imply "supremacy" of those groups.

You can NOT create racist, discriminatory laws embedded in our constitution (or should not be able to) because of certain groups being 'disadvantaged' according to what supremacist Trudeau promotes. There are millions of disadvantaged Canadians, in a thousand different ways and the Charter offers no help for them.

Doing this definitely DOES imply 'supremacy' due to Trudeau's selectivity of these groups.

To advance groups on the basis of language and culture discriminates against millions of other disadvantaged Canadians and discriminates against the majority of Canadians who have made the English language and Christian religion successful and a vibrant part of Canadian culture and tradition.

There is bigotry and racism in Quebec just as there is in the rest of Canada.

This is totally untrue.

Name me a province outside of Quebec that is as nationalistic as Quebec and where where approx. 50% of the population wants to destroy Canada by separating.

Quebec has been discriminating against the ROC much to long and especially ignoring the fact it lives off of the proceeds from the ROC and in my opinion it is payback time, via a national referendum to determine if the ROC wants to retain Quebec as a province in Canada any longer.

[Leafless]

Here's how the Constitution was ratified:

And what political process did the individual States use to ratify the constitution?

Not unlike Canada, in which after much negotiation, 9 of the 10 provinces signed the Charter. Curiously, the one province which you claim was so favoured, Quebec, refused to sign.

Quebec did not sign the Charter because: "Nevertheless, Quebec did not support the Charter (or the Canada Act 1982), with "conflicting interpretations" as to why. The opposition could have owed to the Parti Québécois leadership being allegedly uncooperative, because it was more committed to gaining sovereignty for Quebec. It could have owed to Quebec leaders being excluded from the negotiation of the Kitchen Accord, which they saw as being too centralist. It could have owed to provincial leaders' objections to the Accord's provisions relating to the process of future constitutional amendment.[10] They also opposed the inclusion of mobility rights and minority language education rights.[11] The Charter is still applicable in Quebec because all provinces are bound by the Constitution. However, Quebec's opposition to the 1982 patriation package has led to two failed attempts to amend the Constitution (the Meech Lake Accord and Charlottetown Accord) which were designed primarily to obtain Quebec's political approval of the Canadian constitutional order. Ironically, the only Non-Quebecer to sign the Charter into law was Queen Elizabeth II."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Char...ts_and_Freedoms

This was simply Quebec asking for more but has nothing to do with other contents in the Charter that put Quebec in a very favourable positon.

Here's how it is amended.

United States Constitution.

Practically all amendments outside of the 'Bill of Rights' were minor amendments in nature and totally unlike supremacist Trudeau and his Charter (of major social engineering) that reeked of racism and discrimination.

BTW- Individual U.S. States have the power to propose amendments to their constitution by' demand of the population' by referendum.

Here is a case for example relating Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marr...n_Massachusetts

I'd like to see evidence of what you mean by this. What exactly is the government compelled by the Charter to provide which imposes a "horrendus cost".

For starters, how about the financial obligations relating to the support of three separate societies, ROC, Quebec, Aboriginals.

Sure, having the right to vote doesn't prevent the overriding of rights. You didn't answer this question so I'll put it to you again.

You wrote, "what stops 51% of the population from stripping the freedom, property, and fundamental rights of the 49% minority?

What property rights are you talking about as the charter does NOT protect property rights?

We did have a 'Bill of Rights' since 1960 that even protected property rights, which we could swing back to that in the event of scrapping the Charter. Also we had provincial human rights legislation that varies from province to province.

Edited August 20, 2007 by Leafless

[Leafless]

So do I, however you also seek to impose racism of a different kind. That which imposes the race and culture of the WECC on the minority.

This is a horrible thing to say relating to the goodness of our country. No one ever in Canada has imposed the race and culture of the WECC on the minority.

But I can use reverse analogy and ask you, 'do ethnic immigrants intend to challenge or try to topple WECC by segregating and not integrating with Canadian society and WECC as their numbers increase?

Curious that you say that when you ALREADY have accused me of being a racist:

You said; "You have been labelling me with being a racist, a bigot, when all along it is you,"

You are the one with the continual racist ideologies, not I.

Sorry, buddy. I disclose as little personal informaiton as possible on a public forum. It matters not at all what race I am, it matters whether I have a position which is consistent and is backed by evidence.

Of course it matters what race you are, as you are giving the impression you are a non-biased Mr. Clean.

You have already admitted intolerance and have had a multitude of statements indicating that the WECC should be intolerant of other groups.

I consider myself reasonably tolerant and a good person, but not to the degree to be continually taken advantage of.

BTW, this discussion has strayed considerably from the original scope of the thread. If you want to discuss a wide ranging set of topics from Trudeau, to the process of amending the charter, to what constitutes a racist, they I suggest that other threads are in order.

Sometimes threads are driven in this direction by dwelling to long on a certain issue and other concerns that drive it that way.

If you feel you don't want to be bothered by this type of situation, simply stop replying and taking the initiative yourself to capitalize on the situation and open threads related to what we are currently discussing. I see this happening all the time.

[JB Globe]

I find it rather pathetic that xenophobes are trying to turn the opening of this temple into an issue, when the majority of Canadians don't find it controversial in the slightest.

It's even more sad considering how often these same xenophobes accuse minority-groups of over-exaggerating incidents of racism or discrimination.

Who's making mountains out of molehills now?

[Renegade]

And what political process did the individual States use to ratify the constitution?

You tell me. It wasn't by referendum. I'm not an American historian, but as far as I know it was by negotiatian between states.

Practically all amendments outside of the 'Bill of Rights' were minor amendments in nature and totally unlike supremacist Trudeau and his Charter (of major social engineering) that reeked of racism and discrimination.

The process doesn't distinguish between which amendments were "minor" or "major", the process is the same regardless and can be done without a referendum as you alleged.

For starters, how about the financial obligations relating to the support of three separate societies, ROC, Quebec, Aboriginals.

You mean the spending on ROC, Quebec, and Aboriginls only started after the Charter?

You wrote, "what stops 51% of the population from stripping the freedom, property, and fundamental rights of the 49% minority?

What property rights are you talking about as the charter does NOT protect property rights?

We did have a 'Bill of Rights' since 1960 that even protected property rights, which we could swing back to that in the event of scrapping the Charter. Also we had provincial human rights legislation that varies from province to province.

My question was not specific to the Charter. It would seem based upon you answer you agree that we need some kind of statute which protects individual rights. Am I correct?

[Renegade]

This is a horrible thing to say relating to the goodness of our country.

It is only goodness if it is freely adopted. Once it is imposed it is no longer "goodness".

No one ever in Canada has imposed the race and culture of the WECC on the minority.

No? Don't you think that if a public school forced recital of the Lord's Prayer in the classroom, the little Hindu boy would not feel like WECC culture was being imposed on him?

But I can use reverse analogy and ask you, 'do ethnic immigrants intend to challenge or try to topple WECC by segregating and not integrating with Canadian society and WECC as their numbers increase?

How would I know what they intend to do? I've told you before I don't speak for ethnic immigrants. This is a free society with individual rights protection. They are free to segrate into enclaves if they want to, just like many WECC segrate into enclaves like Forest Hill. It is unlikely that they could segrate completely even if they wanted to because they would need to work and interact with the community at large.

You are the one with the continual racist ideologies, not I.

It would help if you made up your mind on what you want to accuse me of. First you accuse me of being a racist (without offering evidence), then you say you need further information "before you can accuse me of being a racist", now you are back at accusing me of having continual racist ideologies. Sure, I'll bite. Prove it.

Of course it matters what race you are, as you are giving the impression you are a non-biased Mr. Clean.

Is my position any less "clean" if I was black? How about if I was white? how about Asian? How about Moslem? What distinguishing factor about my race makes me biased?

I consider myself reasonably tolerant and a good person, but not to the degree to be continually taken advantage of.

You have given the example of the ban of religion in public schools as an imposition on you. How is the fact that religion being separated from education result in you being continually taken advantage of?

Sometimes threads are driven in this direction by dwelling to long on a certain issue and other concerns that drive it that way.

If you feel you don't want to be bothered by this type of situation, simply stop replying and taking the initiative yourself to capitalize on the situation and open threads related to what we are currently discussing. I see this happening all the time.

It matters little to me one way or the other.

[Renegade]

You can NOT create racist, discriminatory laws embedded in our constitution (or should not be able to) because of certain groups being 'disadvantaged' according to what supremacist Trudeau promotes. There are millions of disadvantaged Canadians, in a thousand different ways and the Charter offers no help for them.

Yes, one of the few things I agree with you on. I think specifc groups should not have been named in the Charter. Who is to say those groups who are "disadvantaged" today would remain "disadvantaged" 200 years from now. The Charter should have guaranteed no discrimmination based upon various traits, however it should not have singled out specific groups.

Doing this definitely DOES imply 'supremacy' due to Trudeau's selectivity of these groups.

Well then you are not using the word "supremacy" in the context you used it previously (ie French supremist). I don't have the patience to look up words for you again.

To advance groups on the basis of language and culture discriminates against millions of other disadvantaged Canadians and discriminates against the majority of Canadians who have made the English language and Christian religion successful and a vibrant part of Canadian culture and tradition.

This is totally untrue.

I agree that the rights of minorities should not be advanced over the rights of WECCs, just as I believe that the rights of WECCs should not be advanced over the rights of minorities. All rights should be considered on an equal basis regardless of if they are the rights of the minority or those of the majority.

Name me a province outside of Quebec that is as nationalistic as Quebec and where where approx. 50% of the population wants to destroy Canada by separating.

You seem to misunderstand or distort what I said. I simply said that bigotry and racism exist in Quebec just as it does in other provinces.

Quebec has been discriminating against the ROC much to long and especially ignoring the fact it lives off of the proceeds from the ROC and in my opinion it is payback time, via a national referendum to determine if the ROC wants to retain Quebec as a province in Canada any longer.

It would seem that you are as much in favour of Quebec separating as anyone in Quebec. If you do advocate the separation of Quebec, does that make you part "of the population wants to destroy Canada by separating"?

[Leafless]

You tell me. It wasn't by referendum.

Then tell me what a delegate is?

The process doesn't distinguish between which amendments were "minor" or "major", the process is the same regardless and can be done without a referendum as you alleged.

Yes it does.

Congress would never unilaterally rubber stamp a contentious piece of social engineering legislation such as Trudeau's 'Charter of rights and Freedoms amendment to their constitution. You would have riots in the streets.

If they did it by convention individual States would never ratify that racist, discriminatory, biased piece of legislation.

You mean the spending on ROC, Quebec, and Aboriginls only started after the Charter?

Plenty was spent , primarily on Quebec prior to the Charter.

But only more so after the Charter was implemented with unearned, undemocratic, rights and privileges applicable to certain groups that cannot be granted in a unilateral fashion when it affects all Canadians, but was nevertheless.

So undemocratic and arrogant.

My question was not specific to the Charter. It would seem based upon you answer you agree that we need some kind of statute which protects individual rights. Am I correct?

Obviously that is not possible.

Why was there not a mass outcry, not only over the Charter that neglected to protect property rights but the rest of the Charter to alter or change rights whenever the 'government of the day' decides to and to declare special rights to certain groups.

It is like provincial human rights legislation, it varies province to province with no controls.

Governments never offered Canadians to be part of establishing human rights legislation or a 'Bill of Rights', it would interfere with their social engineering.

Dream on Canada is not the U.S. and we are a banana republic.