The Charter protects your right to be offended, and to express your indignation accordingly, I am sure.
And don't overlook this useful emoji:
And don't overlook this useful emoji:
Man am I out of it... Yesterday I thought "C-19" must have meant some controversial federal Bill you were referring to that I'd never heard of. lolLook at it this way, what with C-19 and all else, we all have enough serious stuff to occupy our thoughts. Perhaps a bit of silliness won't hurt.
I mean, I guess the thread is posted in the right place. It just seems like a nonsense thread, that's all.
OP makes a post that says "Don't be racist. That's it."
Should I make a thread called "How to end homicide" and then post "Don't kill people. That's it."
Just seems silly...
I think you're onto something there. We need a federal bill. Bill C-19.Man am I out of it... Yesterday I thought "C-19" must have meant some controversial federal Bill you were referring to that I'd never heard of. lol
I hope that my brief moment of mental lapse doesn't offend KAEJS
It sounds like you are talking about affirmative action/positive discrimination.Well actually we have a pretty consistent social agreement that homicide is wrong, and almost everyone across society believes it.
Sure it happens, but it's very rare.
Lets do the same thing to racism, if everyone was on board that it was bad, and we wouldn't accept it, it would quickly be a much smaller issue.
As it is, our tax dollars are actively funding more racism, making the problem worse.
Might I suggest also a sub-section on abolishing earwigs? Though I hope I will not be accused of supporting an omnibus bill that bypasses the spirit of parliamentary debate... It's for the good of the country, afterall.I think you're onto something there. We need a federal bill. Bill C-19.
WHEREAS Covid-19 has been messing up the lives of Canadians for far too long;
AND WHEREAS Canadians in every province are getting rather bored and downright annoyed with the whole thing;
AND WHEREAS measures to control that pestilential C-19 virus have heretofore proven woefully ineffective;
NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1 This Act may be cited as An Act to Abolish COVID-19.
2 (1) The following definitions apply in this Act.
COVID-19 means the COVID-19 virus and all of its many variations and permutations including Delta, Phi Beta Kappa, Lambda and all those as yet unimagined and unheard of;
Order designating Minister
3 The Governor in Council may, by order, designate any federal minister to be the Minister for the purposes of any provision of this Act.
That's a start. Let me get back to drafting this important piece of legislation and, of course, the COVID-19 Eradication Regulations, as subordinate legislation.
Ed. note: If the foregoing does not have KAEJS bellowing for the attention and swift, decisive action by the mods, what will?
I do not believe there is a "positive" discrimination.It sounds like you are talking about affirmative action/positive discrimination.
I don't have problem with them, because the impact of discrimination is intergenerational, however, they MUST have a predetermined termination date that cannot be extended so people don't become addicted to it.
AA is like walking cane, they are useful if you are injured, but if you rely on them for too long, you will forget how to walk.
In my opinion we should improve education for EVERYONE.@MrMatt
The article you select did not rebuke the concept of AA, it only suggest having race base quota for admission is a bad idea. In my opinion, a proper AA policy is to improve education outcome for minority by improving primary and secondary education for minority.
The problem of racism is getting less serious, that's why I mention AA need to have predetermined termination clause after certain time, ot after certain outcome is achieved.
The concept of helping everyone is irrelevant, because I am only talking about people that are injured, this certainly include victims of crime.
That's literally the definition of how AA racism is implemented in most jurisdictions.The article you select did not rebuke the concept of AA, it only suggest having race base quota for admission is a bad idea.
What happen if people from certain ethnic backgrounds are overwhelmed the victims, should there be a program target for that ethnic background ?In my opinion we should improve education for EVERYONE.
Why only improve education for minorities? Why not give everyone the same good education?
I think we should help everyone, and if someone is injured of course they might get different supports.
However if you're suggesting treating them differently because of their experiences, I'm ok with that.
As long as it is for things they actually experienced, that's fine, and I've stated before I'm okay with that.
I don't support racist policies however.
lets take person A and person B
If something bad happened to person B, go ahead, give them help.
However i don't support treating person A and B differently because of their relative races.
For actual experiences and problems they face sure, but race, absolutely not.
I think thats the problem with modern racists. This monolithic view of race, like every person in that group is the same with the same experiences.
To be clear, you're not talking about helping only those who are injured, you're talking about discriminating by race, irrespective of if they are injured or not.
1. Help those who need help (I support this)
2. Treat people differently because of their race. (I categorically reject this)
Just have to add another oneLike every important issue facing humanity today, it all depends on the ability to change the attitudes of the deniers.
Climate Change and Global Warming,
and even the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
There isn't going to be any meaningful progress as long as the deniers continue to trivialize these problems.