Harper hails opening of grand Hindu temple

[M.Dancer]

God, what a worthless thread. Nothing but a racist smear attack.

[Leafless]

I agree with you that there was a time when state and church were not easily separated. But what I am talking about is Canada as it is now. As it is now it is a secular state. Prove me wrong.

Pertaining to the fact Canada has no state religion and practices separation of church and state, from this view yes, Canada could be considered a secular state.

But pertaining to the citizens of Canada, Canada does have a national religion, namely Christianity supported by the large percentage of the population of Canada followed by an assortment of minority religions.

Lets first agree on what you mean by "contributes". Does paying taxes mean "contributes"? Does holding a job mean "contributes". Please do tell.

Contributing by being forced to pay taxes and holding a job that pays dollars for doing that job and how those dollars are spent does not necessarily mean that everyone contributes for the betterment of all Canadians.

Their are many factors to consider to determine if your net contributions don't outweigh your liabilities.

If your liabilities outweigh your contributions then your tax dollars do not benefit for the benefit of all Canadians.

Now that you introduced the word "primarily" what does it mean? Does it mean they pay 51% of the cost?

Pretty soon you'll be saying that all you meant was that they pay "some" of the cost.

No, 'primarily' simply means 'of the first importance'.

I previously included a link relating to the Canada's ethnicity factor and if you recheck it you can calculate what percentage minorities pay, pertaining to the provinces of Ontario and Alberta.

Your anedotal evidence is no means to come to any conclusion and simply serves to reinforce your own prejudices. Do you have any evidence of what you are stating besides your anedotes?

I agree and think it is time for government to publish these numbers so Canadians can see exactly where their tax dollars are going relating to 'official multiculturalism' and cultural expenditures in all provinces in Canada.

[Leafless]

God, what a worthless thread. Nothing but a racist smear attack.

Funny, I never hear you complain about our undemocratic 'Charter' which is a racist policy entrenched in our constitution that affect the rights and well being of an unknown number of Canadians and their livelihood and being a lot worse then what you interpret this thread as being a racist smear attack.

[Renegade]

But pertaining to the citizens of Canada, Canada does have a national religion, namely Christianity supported by the large percentage of the population of Canada followed by an assortment of minority religions.

IMV, it is not sufficient that the majorty of Canadians are Christian to call Christianity the "national religion". IMV for any area to be accorded with the designation as "national", it needs to be officially adopted. (eg national anthem, national sport). Interestingly our summer "natonal sport" (lacrosse) is one which is only played and watched by a small minority of Canadians.

Contributing by being forced to pay taxes and holding a job that pays dollars for doing that job and how those dollars are spent does not necessarily mean that everyone contributes for the betterment of all Canadians.

Their are many factors to consider to determine if your net contributions don't outweigh your liabilities.

If your liabilities outweigh your contributions then your tax dollars do not benefit for the benefit of all Canadians.

Your definition of "contributes for the betterment of all Canadians" is quite different from mine. When the Canadian Women's hockey team won the Gold medal over the US at the 2002 Olympic games do you not think they contributed "for the betterment of all Canadians"?

In any case as you admit below, there are no stats which show that any minority group pays in taxes more or less than it consumes in services. So you have no evidience for the conclusions you have drawn, save for your own anedoctal evidience. If I poke my head into the UI office and only see 5 white men in line, can I conclude that the ranks of the unemployed are made up by only white men?

What brought us to this point was your allegation that "White English speaking Christian Canadians" "pay all the bills". This is a statement you have rapidly backed away from by adding qualifications. Minority groups pay taxes and even contribute to the culture of society. IMV the temple discussed in this thread is a beautiful structure and its very existance is a benefit to society.

No, 'primarily' simply means 'of the first importance'.

Then it makes no sense in the context you have used it. The first dollar of a bill paid is just as important as the last dollar of that bill paid.

To see how nonsensical your statement I have substitued "primarily" for "'of the first importance"

" main income generating provinces Ontario and Alberta are

OF THE FIRST IMPORTANCE

White English speaking Christian Canadians and they are paying all the cost. So I did say they are

of the first importance

paying all the cost.

Do you thnk that is a defendable statement?

I previously included a link relating to the Canada's ethnicity factor and if you recheck it you can calculate what percentage minorities pay, pertaining to the provinces of Ontario and Alberta.

Your link provides no such information. I agree that white christians are the majority. That likely means that they contribute the bulk of the taxes, but that likely also means they consume the bulk of the services. Your stats provide no backup of your claim.

I agree and think it is time for government to publish these numbers so Canadians can see exactly where their tax dollars are going relating to 'official multiculturalism' and cultural expenditures in all provinces in Canada.

You agree that these stats don't exist, but yet you have no problem jumping to the conclusion that minorities don't pull their weight, and that white christians pay "all the bills"?

[Leafless]

IMV, it is not sufficient that the majorty of Canadians are Christian to call Christianity the "national religion". IMV for any area to be accorded with the designation as "national", it needs to be officially adopted. (eg national anthem, national sport). Interestingly our summer "natonal sport" (lacrosse) is one which is only played and watched by a small minority of Canadians.

All the nationals examples you gave are associated with the government of the land.

National does not have to be associated with government as the very definition tells all.

Concise Oxford Dictionary defines national as: "of or common to a nation or the nation. 2.-peculiar to or characteristic of a particular nation."

So there is nothing wrong to the labelling of Christianity as a 'national religion' to which the majority of Canadians belong to. A national religion is not a state religion.

Besides there are many names with national in it you can use without it being associated with government like: National Pizza, National Farm supplies, National grocers Assoc. etc.

When the Canadian Women's hockey team won the Gold medal over the US at the 2002 Olympic games do you not think they contributed "for the betterment of all Canadians"?

No not at all.

Canadian Women's hockey team has simply proven that their competitiveness out done all others relating to this competitive sport.

This is something to be proud of, but does not contribute to "the betterment of all Canadians".

If I poke my head into the UI office and only see 5 white men in line, can I conclude that the ranks of the unemployed are made up by only white men?

If a multitude of others have observed what you did and there have been reports in the media of this and has been the subject of radio talk shows then yes.

How else can society relate to important racial/societal controversial issues when government hides the statistics that could prove 'official multiculturalism' has failed.

" main income generating provinces Ontario and Alberta are OF THE FIRST IMPORTANCE White English speaking Christian Canadians and they are paying all the cost. So I did say they are of the first importance paying all the cost.

Do you thnk that is a defendable statement?

"Of the first importance" is not a word.

So in this case to mean what that definition means we will use the word 'fundamentally'.

Now this of course 'fundamentally' indicates there are secondary concerns but I simply did not mention them, since the second source is fairly insignificant and controversial in the sense that the secondary source could actually be a liability.

So until government makes available (if ever) the proper statistics I can hold the view I think properly represents the issue.

Your link provides no such information. I agree that white christians are the majority. That likely means that they contribute the bulk of the taxes, but that likely also means they consume the bulk of the services. Your stats provide no backup of your claim.

Until the time comes government supplies these statistics per capita by race, we will never know other than the information I suppled previously relating to the only tools society has to confirm its suspicions of irregularities pertaining to race/societal issues.

[Renegade]

Concise Oxford Dictionary defines national as: "of or common to a nation or the nation. 2.-peculiar to or characteristic of a particular nation."

Even by the Concise Oxford definition Christianity is not common to the nation, since a signicant part of the population is not Christian. Is Roman Cathlolic the national religion since it is the largest deomination?

This is something to be proud of, but does not contribute to "the betterment of all Canadians".

I think your definition of betterment is too narrow. Certainly the team contributed to the Canadiaqn pride felt by many of the Canadians who watched. IMV, that is contributing tho the betterment of all Canadians.

BTW, by your definition, there is no evidence to suggest that you or white christians contribute to the "betterment of all canadians" any more then any other groups.

If a multitude of others have observed what you did and there have been reports in the media of this and has been the subject of radio talk shows then yes.

You sitting around shooting-the-shit with the rest of your racist buddies about how minorities are parasites on society is hardly conclusive evidence of anything.

How else can society relate to important racial/societal controversial issues when government hides the statistics that could prove 'official multiculturalism' has failed.

Since you claim that media reports to be one source of obversation, cite some. Has that conspiracy extended to every outlet of the media as well?

Am I right in saying that your theory is that no only government has hidden these statistics, but has colluded with the media so that they too don't source the information?

Now this of course 'fundamentally' indicates there are secondary concerns but I simply did not mention them, since the second source is fairly insignificant and controversial in the sense that the secondary source could actually be a liability.

Regardless of how you want to spin it, you never initially used the word "fundamentally" or "primarily" and later had to backtrack and add it as a qualification when you were called out on the statement, because your originally statement is "fundamentally" wrong.

So until government makes available (if ever) the proper statistics I can hold the view I think properly represents the issue.

Since it is a free country, you are free to hold any view you like, even one which is fundamentally racist and is fundamentally not supported by facts.

Until the time comes government supplies these statistics per capita by race, we will never know other than the information I suppled previously relating to the only tools society has to confirm its suspicions of irregularities pertaining to race/societal issues.

So far the only "tools" you have supplied are your obversations. Only an individual pre-disposed to prejudicial opinions would draw conlusions based upon your limited obversations. Edited July 30, 2007 by Renegade

[Leafless]

Even by the Concise Oxford definition Christianity is not common to the nation, since a signicant part of the population is not Christian. Is Roman Cathlolic the national religion since it is the largest deomination?

Christianity is what we are talking about and does make it the largest religion in Canada, deserving of the 'national title', "Common to the nation".

Definition #2-peculiar to or characteristic of a particular nation, verifies this even further.

BTW, by your definition, there is no evidence to suggest that you or white Christians contribute to the "betterment of all Canadians" any more then any other groups.

Tax wise, certainly, bigger group more tax revenues.

You sitting around shooting-the-shit with the rest of your racist buddies about how minorities are parasites on society is hardly conclusive evidence of anything.

Minorities?

Don't you consider that a Liberal racist slur.

If you don't, you should!

It basically means minorities are of no significance or importance.

Why don't you question your Liberal buddies about that one.

Since you claim that media reports to be one source of observation, cite some. extended to every outlet

Newspaper steer away from race/societal problems due to political correctness.

But the media I am referring to are talk radio shows.

And I will not cite them, for obvious reasons and being not Liberal, do not keep track of times and dates and who said what. Isn't free speech wonderful.

The best advice I can give you is, if you have the opportunity, listen to them yourself.

Am I right in saying that your theory is that no only government has hidden these statistics, but has colluded with the media so that they too don't source the information?

Now you are off in the lunatic region.

Regardless of how you want to spin it, you never initially used the word "fundamentally" or "primarily" and later had to backtrack and add it as a qualification when you were called out on the statement, because your originally statement is "fundamentally" wrong.

What I originally said in post #64 was: "You don't have to be a rocket genius to see how harmful official multiculturalism is and how destructive it is relating prior to 1982, to the destruction of the majority White English speaking Christian Canadian, the ones who pay all the bills to allow this to happen."

I won't back off realting to what I said, because without the tax money from majority White English speaking Christian Canadians, the federal government would not have the financial means to implement official multiculturalism nor have the financial means to finance all the socialistic aspects of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So what are you saying Renegade, that we would have official multiculturalism, official languages, minority language rights, rights of the Aboriginal people, if it was all left up solely to the minorities to finance???

Since it is a free country, you are free to hold any view you like, even one which is fundamentally racist and is fundamentally not supported by facts.

I am getting sick and tired of your racist shots and it is evident you belong to some type of degenerate minority ethnocentric group, which could explain your extreme prejudice.

So far the only "tools" you have supplied are your obversations. Only an individual pre-disposed to prejudicial opinions would draw conlusions based upon your limited obversations.

Observations, intelligent discussion, talk shows, many media reports relating to the the fraudulent ways of the Liberals and being subjected and treated like a third class citizen in an undemocratic country mostly governed by the Liberals that mirror a corrupt banana republic.

[Renegade]

Tax wise, certainly, bigger group more tax revenues.

Tax wise, certainly, bigger group more tax expenditures too.

Minorities?

Don't you consider that a Liberal racist slur.

If you don't, you should!

It basically means minorities are of no significance or importance.

No, I consider it an accurate reflection of your views and how you have come to those conclusions you have come to.

Why don't you question your Liberal buddies about that one.

I'm not sure what you mean. It is your views and conclusions, why would I question anyone but you since you have ZERO evidence or cites to point to.

Newspaper steer away from race/societal problems due to political correctness.

So again, no cites you can produce, because of the GIANT ALL ENCOMPASSING CONSPIRACY TO DENY YOU EVIDENCE?? Right...

But the media I am referring to are talk radio shows.

And I will not cite them, for obvious reasons and being not Liberal, do not keep track of times and dates and who said what. Isn't free speech wonderful.

Of course you can't even cite them or quote anything.... Such is the nature of your weak "evidence"..So your only evidence is a talk show where any racist nut-case can phone in to voice his bigoted opinion. I have yet to meet anyone rational who considers opiinion to be fact. Yet you accept talk-show opinion as evidence to reinforce your prejudice.

The best advice I can give you is, if you have the opportunity, listen to them yourself.

Thank-you, but if I wanted to listen to racist rantings, I'd visit a KKK rally. At least they put on a show.

Am I right in saying that your theory is that no only government has hidden these statistics, but has colluded with the media so that they too don't source the information?

Now you are off in the lunatic region.

Is that right? What does that make you, since you have already admitted that what I have said is consistant with your opinion.

I won't back off realting to what I said, because without the tax money from majority White English speaking Christian Canadians, the federal government would not have the financial means to implement official multiculturalism nor have the financial means to finance all the socialistic aspects of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Too late, you have allready backed off with your use of "primarily" and "fundamentally" to try and qualify your original statement. Of course I agree that without the tax revenue from the majority, there are a great many programs the Government would not be able to implement. Then again if they weren't collecting taxes from the white Christian Canadians they wouldn't have expenditures for the white Christian Canadians either.

BTW, you assume that white Christian Canadians are having their money taken to "finance all the socialistic aspects of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms". So what? How do you know white Canadians Christians arent in favour of this? Most polls I've seen indicate strong support for the Charter. By your own admission you have no idea what the will of Canadians is.

So what are you saying Renegade, that we would have official multiculturalism, official languages, minority language rights, rights of the Aboriginal people, if it was all left up solely to the minorities to finance???

Nope I'm not saying that at all. If the White Christian population were not contributing taxes, it would be because they are not part of Canadian society, and if they weren't it is really unlikely that mulitculturalism laws would even be passed.

I am getting sick and tired of your racist shots and it is evident you belong to some type of degenerate minority ethnocentric group, which could explain your extreme prejudice.

LMAO. In just the other thread you were calling me a homosexual because of my position. So now, I must be a homosexual "degenerate minority"??? The fact that you jump to incorrect conclusions without any evidence in this case doesn't surprise me, as it is a pattern of all your previous statements.

As far as you getting sick. Too bad, so sad, go used the medicare system that no doubt according to you only the white christians paid for.

Observations, intelligent discussion, talk shows, many media reports relating to the the fraudulent ways of the Liberals and being subjected and treated like a third class citizen in an undemocratic country mostly governed by the Liberals that mirror a corrupt banana republic.

Please cite those media reports you are referring to. Your observations are meaningless anedotes, and I have yet to see evidence of intelligent discussion coming from you.

[Leafless]

Please cite those media reports you are referring to. Your observations are meaningless anedotes, and I have yet to see evidence of intelligent discussion coming from you.

And I don't see any merit relating to your twisted analogies.

Obviously there is no reason carrying this debate with you any further, as evidence shows from the nature of your replies, seems you are part of a degenerate minority ethnocentric group that is quite content living in a banana republic.

[Renegade]

And I don't see any merit relating to your twisted analogies.

Of course you don't. When you don't have a credible response, any analogy would seem twisted. I don't blame you though; if I had as weak an argument has you've made, I would stop responding too.

Obviously there is no reason carrying this debate with you any further, as evidence shows from the nature of your replies, seems you are part of a degenerate minority ethnocentric group that is quite content living in a banana republic.

Clearly Leafless you have not consumed or understood any of my other postings. There are many, many things I am not happy about in our society. I'm personally not a supporter of funding to multiculturalism, but my reasons are far, far different than yours.

As far as being part of a minority. I suppose I am. Evey single one of us are a minority of some kind, even you Leafless. You simply are too blind to recognize it. If one day you do recognize that you too are a minority, you may be indeed grateful for the very Charter you dispise as the only thing that protects your rights as a minority.

[Leafless]

As far as being part of a minority. I suppose I am. Evey single one of us are a minority of some kind, even you Leafless. You simply are too blind to recognize it. If one day you do recognize that you too are a minority, you may be indeed grateful for the very Charter you dispise as the only thing that protects your rights as a minority.

I could not care less about the minority factor.

Countries are born out of a common nationality and a common objective and majority White English speaking Canadians have been sold down the drain basically by the Federal Liberal government and their discriminatory Charter based on culture.

What matters to me is the legal relationship between a person and his or her country and this is where majority White English speaking Canadian Canadians and all other Canadians with identical objectives have been betrayed, legally by a corrupt Charter.

[Renegade]

What matters to me is the legal relationship between a person and his or her country and this is where majority White English speaking Canadian Canadians and all other Canadians with identical objectives have been betrayed, legally by a corrupt Charter.

Well I would say your legal choices are to change anything are fairly limited. Even if you could change things I see precious little support for your position from other "majority White English speaking Canadian Canadians". So I guess you are on your own buddy.

[Leafless]

What matters to me is the legal relationship between a person and his or her country and this is where majority White English speaking Canadian Canadians and all other Canadians with identical objectives have been betrayed, legally by a corrupt Charter.

Well I would say your legal choices are to change anything are fairly limited. Even if you could change things I see precious little support for your position from other "majority White English speaking Canadian Canadians". So I guess you are on your own buddy.

How would you know what other Canadians would support, other than unreliable polls conducted by the tyrannical Liberals who removed fundamental rights and freedoms with their undemocratic, discriminatory Charter from the majority White English speaking Christian Canadians with laws created by tyrannical judges who are accountable to no one.

Anyways, that what NOT the drift of my post and if you can read it was relating to "the legal relationship between a person and his or her country".

There is no longer any relationship relating to a prime culture and the Charter has been bastardized to eliminate the common objectives and goals of this country to the cultural whims of any Tom, Dick or Harry.

Changing the Charter will not be necessary as Canada is already headed on a downward spiral relating to the support of Charter obligations and will probably self destruct.

To think Canada's total debt has been borrowed to pay for the innumerable cultural and social programs.

You can add to this proceeds from the G.S.T, gas tax, E.I fund and others all taken in part to be dumped into general revenues to also help pay the staggering cost of Canada's social programs.

It is gratifying to know that 70% of Canada's social spending is transferred to the top third of income earners.

For cultural and recreation services, 47.4%, health spending, 37.6%, education 42.5%. The link to these numbers unfortunately no longer works.

I am hoping Alberta will pack up and leave as this will guarantee to end to the oppressive and discriminatory Charter relating to funding Trudeau's publicly financed Utopia.

Edited July 31, 2007 by Leafless

[Bonam]

Tom, Dick or Harry.

Shouldn't that be Wong, Mohammed, or Singh? Lol.

Anyway, nothing wrong with a Hindu temple I'd say. It wasn't built with public funds or anything, so I don't see a problem.

[Renegade]

How would you know what other Canadians would support, other than unreliable polls conducted by the tyrannical Liberals who removed fundamental rights and freedoms with their undemocratic, discriminatory Charter from the majority White English speaking Christian Canadians with laws created by tyrannical judges who are accountable to no one.

Polls are not conducted by the Liberals nor are many of them comissioned by them. Polls are the best and most cost effective way to guage sentiment. Here is further evidence of sentiment toward the charter:Most Canadians like charter

Despite being repeatedly asked, you have yet to produce one bit of evidence which suggests that the majority of Canadians dislike the Charter. Frankly your "grand conspiracy to deny you evidence" story is nothing but fantasy wrapped in self-delusion.

Anyways, that what NOT the drift of my post and if you can read it was relating to "the legal relationship between a person and his or her country".

Enlighten me. What does "the legal relationship between a person and his or her country" even mean? Does it mean your obligations as a citzen? What?

There is no longer any relationship relating to a prime culture and the Charter has been bastardized to eliminate the common objectives and goals of this country to the cultural whims of any Tom, Dick or Harry.

What are those "common objectives and goals of this country"? How can you definatively say what they are since you have admitted you have no idea of the will of the Canadian people and can point to no evidence.

Changing the Charter will not be necessary as Canada is already headed on a downward spiral relating to the support of Charter obligations and will probably self destruct.

Which kind of begs the question, why are you still here? It's been 20 some years since the Charter was adopted. You admit that the direction of the country isn't going to change. You acknowledge you have no political power to influence toward your way of thinking. So why exactly are you still here?

Also, since you dislike the Canadian sytem so much, which western civilized country can you point to which you think best models how a democracy should work.

It is gratifying to know that 70% of Canada's social spending is transferred to the top third of income earners.

I assume you are gratified because that is not the third you are in?

I am hoping Alberta will pack up and leave as this will guarantee to end to the oppressive and discriminatory Charter relating to funding Trudeau's publicly financed Utopia.

Why wait? You could leave now assuming you find some country tolerant enough to accept you.

[Leafless]

Tom, Dick or Harry.

Shouldn't that be Wong, Mohammed, or Singh? Lol.

Good one!

More to the point.

Lol, if I would have said that, I probably would have been banned.

Anyway, nothing wrong with a Hindu temple I'd say. It wasn't built with public funds or anything, so I don't see a problem.

So, it was not built with public funds.

How can you be so sure?

[guyser]

So, it was not built with public funds.

How can you be so sure?

Hmm.....reading ones own post and clicking the link the OP provided would answer that question. Begs the question...did he even read his own link? For the rest of the readers here it is....

"The temple’s construction cost $40-million, donated by “worshippers or well-wishers” of the BAPS religion. More than 400 volunteers gave their services on site. "

Oh I think one can be sure.

[Renegade]

So, it was not built with public funds.

How can you be so sure?

Hmm.....reading ones own post and clicking the link the OP provided would answer that question. Begs the question...did he even read his own link? For the rest of the readers here it is....

"The temple’s construction cost $40-million, donated by “worshippers or well-wishers” of the BAPS religion. More than 400 volunteers gave their services on site. "

Oh I think one can be sure.

Not only was the temple built with donations, but so was the museum

The cost to build the museum was raised entirely through donations

(from the link I previously provided)

and the museum is open for the benefit of all Canadians (open-minded ones anyway)

[Leafless]

So, it was not built with public funds.

How can you be so sure?

Hmm.....reading ones own post and clicking the link the OP provided would answer that question. Begs the question...did he even read his own link? For the rest of the readers here it is....

"The temple’s construction cost $40-million, donated by “worshippers or well-wishers” of the BAPS religion. More than 400 volunteers gave their services on site. "

Oh I think one can be sure.

Donations could very well mean the diversion of public money, in the way of money from federal E.U. payments, welfare payments, subsidies of one sort or another, federal grants diverted from other sources or any other sources of federal or provincial money partially or fully transferred over for the construction for the construction of the temple.

[Leafless]

Polls are not conducted by the Liberals nor are many of them comissioned by them. Polls are the best and most cost effective way to guage sentiment. Here is further evidence of sentiment toward the charter:Most Canadians like charter

So, Your telling me CanWest is not Liberal friendly?

Most know it is a liberal rag.

http://www.exactlyright.ca/blog/?p=52

Despite being repeatedly asked, you have yet to produce one bit of evidence which suggests that the majority of Canadians dislike the Charter. Frankly your "grand conspiracy to deny you evidence" story is nothing but fantasy wrapped in self-delusion.

Up to now the federal government will not allow that type of proof.

Hopefully they will come to their senses and allow Canadians to respond to these type of questions 'OFFICIALLY' incorporating a mini-referendum with federal elections, and providing of course the question is asked in a precise manner.

Edited July 31, 2007 by Leafless

[Renegade]

Donations could very well mean the diversion of public money, in the way of money from federal E.U. payments, welfare payments, subsidies of one sort or another, federal grants diverted from other sources or any other sources of federal or provincial money partially or fully transferred over for the construction for the construction of the temple.

I can't see any scenario in this case in which Donation can mean EI payments, welfare payments, or any public money. Are you alleging that public money has been used or is that just mindless speculation on your part?

[Renegade]

So, Your telling me CanWest is not Liberal friendly?

Most know it is a liberal rag.

You apparently cannot distinguish between the firm conducting the poll and one reporting the results.

CanWest did not conduct the poll so it is irrlevant if you consider them biased. SES Research conducted the poll and here's a direct link Charter Values

Up to now the federal government will not allow that type of proof.

Hopefully they will come to their senses and allow Canadians to respond to these type of questions 'OFFICIALLY' incorporating a mini-referendum with federal elections, and providing of course the question is asked in a precise manner.

That's BS. You or anyone else can commission a poll or survey if you want to and publish the results. How is the federal government stopping you or anyone else from doing so. In order to maintan this charade you play you need to keep expanding the scope of your conspiracy.

[Leafless]

Enlighten me. What does "the legal relationship between a person and his or her country" even mean? Does it mean your obligations as a citzen? What?

I did edit my post originally to exclude the word 'legal' which existed in two places, but inadvertently only scrubbed one.

It means integrating to the fundamental majority culture and traditions of the country like most Canadians did prior to the Charter.

What are those "common objectives and goals of this country"?

Why don't you if you have the chance sometime sit down and read about the history of Canada and our close association with the U.S.

How can you definitely say what they are since you have admitted you have no idea of the will of the Canadian people and can point to no evidence.

I have a very good idea what the will is of the majority White English speaking Christian Canadians and of course all other Canadians who agree with the majority culture and its traditions and history.

But I cannot prove it and neither can you (forget polls in extremely important matters like this one) without an 'OFFICAL REFERENDUM' of one sort or another.

Which kind of begs the question, why are you still here?

If I felt it was any of your business I would tell you.

You acknowledge you have no political power to influence toward your way of thinking.

I don't have any political power in a singular sense.

One way a national party could possibly scrap the Charter is claim it unconstitutional and undemocratic and leave that decision up to Canadians if the government so chooses.

Then there is 'Black Law' to contest the Charter.

Or take it apart in bits and pieces.

So why exactly are you still here?

I particular don't like having my majority culture stolen by a bunch of tyrants.

I will stay and fight.

I have PRINCIPLES.

Also, since you dislike the Canadian sytem so much, which western civilized country can you point to which you think best models how a democracy should work.

The country that lies to the south of us that stretches from sea to sea, the UNITED STATED OF AMERICA.

I assume you are gratified because that is not the third you are in?

I was being sarcastic.

Poor people are the losers in the game plan that feeds from the top to the bottom.

Why wait? You could leave now assuming you find some country tolerant enough to accept you.

I don't base my immigration criteria on tolerance.

Either I am accepted or I am not.

[Leafless]

You apparently cannot distinguish between the firm conducting the poll and one reporting the results.

CanWest did not conduct the poll so it is irrlevant if you consider them biased. SES Research conducted the poll and here's a direct link Charter Values

CanWest supported their findings.

BTW- I will tell you again. I do not support polls of any kind, especially those that can be manipulated for vast amounts of money or power.

[guyser]

BTW- I will tell you again. I do not support polls of any kind, especially those that can be manipulated for vast amounts of money or power.

I wonder what a "vote' on the Charter could also be called.

Wait...I know , how about a "poll" .

Uh oh...conundrum.

Yet thru all these years we have had to head out to the polls to vote.

Uh oh...double conundrum.

And if this poll/vote came back and said 59% think its great......well , it likely would be Quebec/immigrants fault. Maybe someone is actually Jacques Parizeau in disguise.

Zoot aleurs !