Conservative Immigration Policy

[AlvinofDiaspar]

As for the erosion of Canadian values, it has been mostly an inside job. Take, for instance, our fundamental freedoms of religion and speech. Legislators, social scientists and the courts have been hacking away at these for decades now. We’re at a point where speaking one’s faith, laughing at religious pomposity, and challenging the political implications of a belief system can land one before the authorities (and those same authorities can bring life-altering sanctions without regard to traditional rules of evidence and due process). Immigrants didn’t accomplish all that.

Ironic, since I thought those legislators, social scientists and the courts are the very actors who brought equality of sexes and gay rights to the table - without whom the former would still be playing housewife and paid less for equal labour (if they are encouraged to work at all), and the latter still chastized as social malcontents or mentally unwell. So are we going to teach Canadians that only freedoms of speech and religions (and whose religion, I might add) are fundamental Canadian values worth respecting? Sorry, my Canadian values are broader than that, and I challenge that a Minister with such views is unfit to hold the office to which he is appointed.

As to democratic rights, well, the current government and the constitutional crisis in November made a mockery of that issue. Perhaps they should start by explaining how a change in government by lawful means under our constitution can be regarded as anti-democratic and constitute a "coup" to themselves first before lecturing the rest of us about rule of law and our institutions.

AoD

 

[Whoaccio]

^
I think you misread the article. I'm pretty sure they weren't calling for a return to some kind of Anita Bryant inspired society. They were just pointing out that most of the fundamental changes to our society, for better or worse, are the result of an "inside job" by native born Canadians. Its an important point, one that many people ignore for the sake of convenience. To some people multiculturalism and gay marriage are sort of the twin heads of some insidious plot to topple Canadian society. It is a ridiculous viewpoint, obviously, but an annoyingly persistent one. It is fairly common to blame Muslim Canadians for the HRCs, when that is inaccurate considering the commissions domestic pedigree.

As to the "coup," they mentioned that to show the profound lack of knowledge most native born Canadians have of our government. It specifically refereed to the coalition as "normal political gamesmanship" which was misinterpreted as an "attempted coup" by the largely ignorant masses.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Whoaccio:

I think you misread the article. I'm pretty sure they weren't calling for a return to some kind of Anita Bryant inspired society.

If not, why would they posit the change as "erosion", which is hardly a neutral term. The article subtly conflate two issues - 1. erosion of civics and 2. value judgement on what the desirable state (i.e. talk about returning to "fundamental" rights, etc) is.

They were just pointing out that most of the fundamental changes to our society, for better or worse, are the result of an "inside job" by native born Canadians. Its an important point, one that many people ignore for the sake of convenience.

But of course they are - levers of power is more often than not held by established individuals in a country. Nothing new there - except for those who like to scapegoat.

To some people multiculturalism and gay marriage are sort of the twin heads of some insidious plot to topple Canadian society. It is a ridiculous viewpoint, obviously, but an annoyingly persistent one. It is fairly common to blame Muslim Canadians for the HRCs, when that is inaccurate considering the commissions domestic pedigree.

Of course it isn't fair to blame newcomers and other groups for the HRC - but at the same time, it must be stated that these groups do use the HRC (legitimately or otherwise). I mean, think about the case of the print shop refusing business from a gay client - would that issue, which is clearly unjust, be rectified? I mean, isn't fairness a fundamental Canadian value?

As to the "coup," they mentioned that to show the profound lack of knowledge most native born Canadians have of our government. It specifically refereed to the coalition as "normal political gamesmanship" which was misinterpreted as an "attempted coup" by the largely ignorant masses.

The ignorance of the masses is one thing - the government furthering ignorance through their use of spin in spite of knowledge of the contrary is another. I mean, shouldn't one question whether a government that is a willing actor in spreading misinformation about our institutions for political expediency is fit to "educate" the populace about civics? I mean, there is a huge difference between teaching someone to go ra-ra about anything Canadian (which is what civics are often interpreted as) from a genuine understanding of how the Canadian system works, with a sense of belonging to the country that is rational in approach.

Quite frankly, I think politicians should be the last to have any say on the issue of civics - considering their performance of late.

AoD

 

[Tewder]

Of course it isn't fair to blame newcomers and other groups for the HRC - but at the same time, it must be stated that these groups do use the HRC (legitimately or otherwise). I mean, think about the case of the print shop refusing business from a gay client - would that issue, which is clearly unjust, be rectified? I mean, isn't fairness a fundamental Canadian value?

You state this a little cavalierly, AoD. Lives are equally being destroyed by the HRC and the abuse of false claims. We must be concerned about the HRC overzealously overstepping its bounds, and turning Canada into somewhat of a McCarthy-esque culture. This alarms me.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Tewder:

You state this a little cavalierly, AoD.

Did I? Of course we should be careful of organizations overstepping its' bounds - but at the same time, one needs to put the whole debate into context - just how many cases before the HRC constitute "abuse", much less the HRC overstepping its' authority? The article suggest that it is nothing but worthless, when I have in effected demonstrated the experience is far more mixed - and some outcomes certainly justified its' existence - where the court of law fails to ensure fairness.

AoD

 

[lordmandeep]

Many people do not understand the role many appointed government figures have on our society.

Like the Supreme court, The Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Governor General.


Supreme court greatly effects the laws of our land, the Governor is as important as the Minister of Fiance when it comes to the economy.

Governor General has no real power, but we saw in December that she has an important role.

Many people have no idea what they do, but luckily in Canada we have been blessed by good people having those roles.

 

[Tewder]

Tewder:

Did I? Of course we should be careful of organizations overstepping its' bounds - but at the same time, one needs to put the whole debate into context - just how many cases before the HRC constitute "abuse", much less the HRC overstepping its' authority? The article suggest that it is nothing but worthless, when I have in effected demonstrated the experience is far more mixed - and some outcomes certainly justified its' existence - where the court of law fails to ensure fairness.

AoD

In the same way that there will always be individuals who discriminate there will always be people who lie and abuse the system. Is one worse than the other? In fact I would say that the false claimant is more of a criminal, strictly speaking, than one who discriminates...

Regardless, it is probably next to impossible to determine just how many cases are legitimate and how many constitute abuse on the part of disingenuous claimants, and in a way that's just my point: why replace one flawed system (the legal one) with another (HRC)? For all its flaws the legal system should be perfectly adequate to address those situations where an individual's quality of life has beens seriously harmed through the infringement of rights.

It is also important to recognize that the ends do not always justify the means, and we need to look at the wider 'damage' we do to society in the inherent presumption of guilt that the HRC process assumes and in the witch-hunt quality this takes.

 

[jade_lee]

What will Ezra Levant write about if not for the HRC? He is not my hero that's for damn sure.